PDA

View Full Version : Australian Junior Champs format sf Aus Junior 2010



Mischa
19-04-2009, 10:47 PM
I am excited that the juniors are being held in one of Australia's most beautiful states.
I just have a query that has been a constant bugbear with me and many parents of juniors (especially young ones)
If a huge International tournament and IM's and GM's can handle two games on a single day...why is this not possible for a junior tournament?
As has been lamented before, the cost of 12 days or more is prohibitive for many people, inhibiting the number of entrants.
The excuse in the past has been that the coaches need time to coach...
I have never seen this to be the case except for some coaches that over reach. The other excuse I did hear was that the coaches neeed some free time to unwind etc...
Can some one enlighten me?

joergw
20-04-2009, 12:23 AM
I can't agree more.
If someone would care to do a voting amongst the parents, I bet 90% would go for two games a day - at least that is my perception after having personal discussions with other parents. Apart from the costs - a typical Australian has 4 weeks of annual leave a year, and the Juniors are not the only important tournament in a calendar year.

Personally we decided for that reason not to attend in Adelaide this year - the decision would have been different if two games per day would have been played.

But unfortunately I am quite sure nothing will change with regards to that - as you say there are always the same couple of excuses to have only one game a day...

Joerg

Mischa
20-04-2009, 12:31 AM
I have to ask ...for whom is the torunament being run?
I agree over the past 5 years or more I have only met one mother of a junior who thinks on game is a preferred option (sorry I think maybe two, now I think on it)

Davidflude
20-04-2009, 07:37 AM
I have to ask ...for whom is the torunament being run?
I agree over the past 5 years or more I have only met one mother of a junior who thinks on game is a preferred option (sorry I think maybe two, now I think on it)

Compare this with the Victorian Junior where the under twelve is played over two days followed by the under 18 played over four days with some players playing in both.

Both have more than one round a day. The juniors thrive on more than one round a day. They even play vast amounts of blitz and transfer between rounds.

joergw
20-04-2009, 09:26 AM
Compare this with the Victorian Junior where the under twelve is played over two days followed by the under 18 played over four days with some players playing in both.


David, you are absolutely right in pointing that out! I appreciate the way in which the Vic Juniors are run.
For most of the kids it is quite boring to have only one game a day - I can for sure say that for my son. If you watch the younger kids, a game hardly takes ever longer than 90 minutes. In addition the games are scheduled in the middle of the day - which prevents one from making decent use of the day.

Miranda
20-04-2009, 10:08 AM
For most of the kids it is quite boring to have only one game a day - I can for sure say that for my son. If you watch the younger kids, a game hardly takes ever longer than 90 minutes. In addition the games are scheduled in the middle of the day - which prevents one from making decent use of the day.
Maybe it is boring for the younger kids, but I find one game a day to be a great schedule. For us older kids, each game can go on for hours and be very draining, and the rest of the day gives us time to recuperate, then the next morning or later that night we have lots of time to prepare for our next opponent, which is useful if your coach is coaching more than one person.

Mischa
20-04-2009, 10:31 AM
Older kids are usually pretty good at preparing themselves and often don't need the post game debrief with a coach, having done so with their opponent.

I also agree that by having the game in the middle of the day is one of the most annoying practices.
I am sure that the players in the SIO and Doerberl had time to prepare...if not then they are all playing under the same conditions so on a level playing field.
What is the longest game played in an Aus junior?
Miranda I would look closely at a coach who can't fit in coaching for two games over 12 hour period.

Brian_Jones
20-04-2009, 10:54 AM
I just have a query that has been a constant bugbear with me and many parents of juniors (especially young ones)
If a huge International tournament and IM's and GM's can handle two games on a single day...why is this not possible for a junior tournament? As has been lamented before, the cost of 12 days or more is prohibitive for many people, inhibiting the number of entrants.

I agree. The Australian Junior Championships should be shortened. One round a day is just too slow!!

joergw
20-04-2009, 11:03 AM
Probably the only way to get that topic being addressed and driven forward is to have a proper voting. Otherwise only a very few individuals (including me ;) ) express their personal opinion here , but it won't lead anywhere.

I remember that some time ago there was a voting process about a constitution using the AusJCL mailing list. Would that be a potential approach to come to a clear picture what the majority of parents and kids really want? Who could decide/drive such an approach?

bobby1972
20-04-2009, 11:29 AM
adelaide was very good but a bit long ,too many days some of those days could be better spent at sea world,anyway as kids get older games get longer.

joergw
20-04-2009, 11:40 AM
adelaide was very good but a bit long ,too many days some of those days could be better spent at sea world,anyway as kids get older games get longer.

To my knowledge organizers haven't been too happy about the number of participants in Adelaide.
Our son hasn't been the only one not to attend due to the almost two weeks which the tournament ran. I know other parents who came to the same decision.

AzureBlue
20-04-2009, 11:41 AM
adelaide was very good but a bit long ,too many days some of those days could be better spent at sea world,anyway as kids get older games get longer.
yeah, would be better if the tourney was shorter, 2 games a day would be great :)
then u could spend the extra days (almost a week) touring the state :)

Ian Rout
20-04-2009, 11:55 AM
A compromise could be to have two rounds on some days early on as at this year's Australian Open (among others). The catch would be that with relatively small fields the top two contenders could still be matched early on in the late round after having a relatively short break to recover, have a meal and prepare. (Or worse, when one of them has).

I have a recollection that this subject was debated at length in the past (and I would be amazed if it hasn't), perhaps if anyone knows where then it could be linked to avoid retracing old ground. In any case it's been decided for 2010 so it would be more useful to start lobbying for 2011.

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2009, 02:00 PM
The decision to have one round a day on most days comes from the Australian Junior Chess League so I suggest that any concerns about it be taken up with them for future years; we are too far advanced in organisation to shorten the schedule now even in the unlikely case that the AusJCL wanted to! Basically the AusJCL were willing to accept the single double-up of rounds 2 and 3 (relatively early in the tournament when the fields are still sorting themselves out) but were not willing to accept a second double-up of 5 and 6 (I can understand that as these are crunch rounds that are often very important to the final standings).

I'm very well aware of this ongoing debate about the Aus Junior format - as it stands it is intermediate between an elite event and a mass-participation event and I know the AusJCL, now that it has control over the conditions, will consider which way this goes over the next few years.

I'm also very well aware that the length of the tournament in terms of time and cost is a big issue for practically every parent - what I can say is that we will be offering accommodation at what we consider to be a very reasonable per-night rate to try to keep these costs down.

Denis_Jessop
20-04-2009, 08:42 PM
I can't agree more.
If someone would care to do a voting amongst the parents, I bet 90% would go for two games a day - at least that is my perception after having personal discussions with other parents. Apart from the costs - a typical Australian has 4 weeks of annual leave a year, and the Juniors are not the only important tournament in a calendar year.

Personally we decided for that reason not to attend in Adelaide this year - the decision would have been different if two games per day would have been played.

But unfortunately I am quite sure nothing will change with regards to that - as you say there are always the same couple of excuses to have only one game a day...

Joerg

I understand that the AusJCL (Australian Junior Chess League) is looking at the format of future Australian Junior Championships and did ask the parents etc at the last one for their views on the matter. The results of that survey and decisions about future Championships should be in place for the 2011 event though, as I am not a member of the AusJCL Council, I can't give definitive information on that.

DJ

Oepty
20-04-2009, 11:08 PM
I understand that the AusJCL (Australian Junior Chess League) is looking at the format of future Australian Junior Championships and did ask the parents etc at the last one for their views on the matter. The results of that survey and decisions about future Championships should be in place for the 2011 event though, as I am not a member of the AusJCL Council, I can't give definitive information on that.

DJ

The intention to completely revise the format was spoken about at the AGM of the AUSJCL which was held in Adelaide. The AUSJCL seemed to be wanting to move to a tournament for each division (Under 18, Under 16 etc) although it seems unlikely this would be achievable for the girls sections because of the general lack of numbers. It was seen that the juniors in Hobart would be the last one under the current structure and the 2011 juniors would be the first of the new structure. The AUSJCL is well aware of the cost issues.
Scott

Vlad
21-04-2009, 12:12 AM
The intention to completely revise the format was spoken about at the AGM of the AUSJCL which was held in Adelaide. The AUSJCL seemed to be wanting to move to a tournament for each division (Under 18, Under 16 etc) although it seems unlikely this would be achievable for the girls sections because of the general lack of numbers. It was seen that the juniors in Hobart would be the last one under the current structure and the 2011 juniors would be the first of the new structure. The AUSJCL is well aware of the cost issues.
Scott

I am really hoping they change their mind. The only effect will be that top juniors will not be playing. Currently only top under 18 and under 16 do not play. With the new system that will be the case for all divisions. What a point of having such championships?

Well, we better book our tickets to Hobart it may as well be our last Aussie Juniors.:)

On the other hand, I agree with the majourity of parents. It makes perfect sense to have 2 rounds a day. It is much more important to attract more participants rather than convinience of coaching.

Malfegor01
21-04-2009, 12:50 AM
The intention to completely revise the format was spoken about at the AGM of the AUSJCL which was held in Adelaide. The AUSJCL seemed to be wanting to move to a tournament for each division (Under 18, Under 16 etc) although it seems unlikely this would be achievable for the girls sections because of the general lack of numbers. It was seen that the juniors in Hobart would be the last one under the current structure and the 2011 juniors would be the first of the new structure. The AUSJCL is well aware of the cost issues.
ScottWell aware, maybe... Care factor ?? debatable:confused: There is always the alternative of removing the "rest" days and dropping back to 9 rounds. Start on the Sat and finish on the next Sunday but still with 1 round a day. Keeps the people happy that only want one game a day but also shortens the tournament to one working week and a couple of weekends. If you had too, you could fly in early Sat and leave Sunday night. I believe that a number of the organisers for Hobart were quite keen on this option when suggested at the AGM however the majority of AUSJL office holders did not seem to like the idea and also considered changing anything for 2010 would be too soon. Playing the games at a sensible time of the day was also discussed. ie A early morning or late afternoon time to allow families to also spend some time having a look around instead of the middle of the day games which effectively kill the entire day. From the discussion this seemed unlikely to happen as the coaches considered they needed to have time in the morning to prepare and then more time after the game to analise.
The schedule posted above for Hobart shows that the opinions of the vast majority of parents are being ignored again.

Not quite sure why as the current format has parents (and players) staying away in droves.

Re the one or two games a day..as the person paying the bills I would much prefer 2 games a day. Interestingly my 11yo only wants one game a day.
As to how long games normally go in the Junior tournament. In Adelaide there was most likely no round where a number of games did not go past 4 hours in the U18 and there were a surprising number of games in the U12 that went between 3 and 4 hours. This may not be the majority of the games but it did include a lot of extremely entertaining chess and also seemed to regularly be the same players. Moving to a 2 game a day format will disadvantage these players.

Saragossa
21-04-2009, 10:11 PM
No way would I play two rounds per day. The tournament is as much about correct preparation as it is about play and I want the best chances for me and if this means a slow tournament then I couldn't care less as long as I have the energy to give every game my best shot.

Nicholas D-C
21-04-2009, 10:14 PM
I strongly believe that a one round a day format should be kept for this event. It can be very draining to have two very long games each day, and several two-round days in succession will be very tiring. The quality of the event would be lowered, and it is important to have a good break in between the games. One of my games from Adelaide went for over 5 hours! There is a risk of the AJC becoming a test of endurance, rather than ability.

Regarding the comparison to the SIO and the Doeberl Cup, these are adult events, and therefore need to have a tighter schedule. Players cannot take two weeks off work for every tournament!

Tony Dowden
25-04-2009, 09:23 AM
I strongly believe that a one round a day format should be kept for this event. It can be very draining to have two very long games each day, and several two-round days in succession will be very tiring. The quality of the event would be lowered, and it is important to have a good break in between the games. One of my games from Adelaide went for over 5 hours! There is a risk of the AJC becoming a test of endurance, rather than ability.

Regarding the comparison to the SIO and the Doeberl Cup, these are adult events, and therefore need to have a tighter schedule. Players cannot take two weeks off work for every tournament!

I agree with this sentiment.

But its funny hearing this from juniors when my perspective comes from being nearly 50 years old and being expected to play three games (with a 'long' 90 min + 30 sec time control) on some days in events like the Tasmanian Championships. On the top boards this can mean a marathon of 10+ hours of play on a single day (unless one takes a strategic short draw). Some of our older players in the state have told me they don't play anymore because the nature of the event is simply too punishing.

Brian_Jones
26-04-2009, 12:00 PM
One of my games from Adelaide went for over 5 hours!

This sounds so funny to us older players who remember six hour playing sessions and adjournments as standard in important events BC (before computers)!

Brian_Jones
26-04-2009, 12:05 PM
But its funny hearing this from juniors when my perspective comes from being nearly 50 years old and being expected to play three games (with a 'long' 90 min + 30 sec time control) on some days in events like the Tasmanian Championships. On the top boards this can mean a marathon of 10+ hours of play on a single day (unless one takes a strategic short draw). Some of our older players in the state have told me they don't play anymore because the nature of the event is simply too punishing.

During the weekender boom in the 1970s in England it was common to play three games per day. The round times were 9-1, 2-6, 7-11. Only 12 hours chess each day - maybe we were fitter than the juniors today? :)

Nicholas D-C
27-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Imagine asking the top players like Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky etc. being asked to play for 12 hours a day!

eclectic
27-04-2009, 01:32 PM
Imagine asking the top players like Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky etc. being asked to play for 12 hours a day!

they would cope with it quite well; they have the stamina for it

indeed i would love to see them battle it out in long endgames

Saragossa
27-04-2009, 02:36 PM
they would cope with it quite well; they have the stamina for it

indeed i would love to see them battle it out in long endgames

I doubt they would enter though.

eclectic
27-04-2009, 02:39 PM
I doubt they would enter though.

of course not; they're not juniors anymore! :owned:

Brian_Jones
27-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Imagine asking the top players like Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky etc. being asked to play for 12 hours a day!

GMs did play 12 hours a day. I can remember Miles, Short, Timman, Benko playing in English weekenders!

Nicholas D-C
28-04-2009, 07:07 PM
I recently saw an article in New in Chess written by Nigel Short about the Commonwealth Championships. He was cursing the person who thought it was a good idea to have more than one long game a day! I guess it depends on how important the event is.

Fenguin
28-04-2009, 10:27 PM
I think 1 round a day is a good thing. Playing in Adelaide... I really struggled in the double round... 1 thing that it was early... I had way too much energy..... and by the end of 1st round... I was drained... but there was still another round late afternoon.... Yes, maybe for parents, 2 games a day is alot more convenient as it makes the tournament shorter, and also you dun have as much time spent just waiting for your kid to finish.... but the chess tournament to be successful, needs to have everyone playing their maximum.... and having 2 games a day would just mentally drain us juniors...

Garvinator
28-04-2009, 10:31 PM
I think the most important item is that we are talking about the Australian Junior Championship, an elite event which in part prepares our top juniors for playing overseas and events overseas are normally played at one round per day.

eclectic
28-04-2009, 10:32 PM
excellent point GG ;) :clap: :clap: :clap:

ER
28-04-2009, 11:08 PM
I think the most important item is that we are talking about the Australian Junior Championship, an elite event which in part prepares our top juniors for playing overseas and events overseas are normally played at one round per day.
Not really, since not ALL of them will represent Australia anyway! However, I prefer the one-game-a-day-formula for quality reasons.
Having said all that, we are going toward difficult times, which apparently will get much worse before they get any better, and I really see things from parents point of view as well!

Brian_Jones
29-04-2009, 08:33 AM
I think the most important item is that we are talking about the Australian Junior Championship, an elite event which in part prepares our top juniors for playing overseas and events overseas are normally played at one round per day.

Elite - are you kidding? :)

Overseas events do not have 60 second increments! ;)

Many overseas events (particularly in Asia) are two rounds per day! ;)

Why do our juniors not continue into adult chess?

Vlad
29-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Think about this problem from a family budget prospective. Say, you have allocated $3000 to chess tournaments. What would be better?
Option 1: just Australian Juniors with 1 game a day.
Option 2: Australian Juniors with 2 games a day plus SIO or Queenstown (or some other elite tournament).

I have a feeling even from junior players point of view, it is not a clear cut answer. I would divide players in 3 groups.

A) I would think if a player is somewhere 1400-1700 strength then he/she would prefer to play one game a day, because he/she is somewhere in the middle strength of the open section, so each game requires some effort.

B) If a player is of 2000-2200 strength then
a) the above argument about 1 vs 2 tournaments is very important;
b) only a few games are tough.
So my guess is that the elite players are less likely to play in a tournament 1 game a day.
C) For players below 1400 the trip to the Australian Juniors is mostly a holiday. I would think $3000 is just a bit too much for most of the families, so they would probably also prefer a shorter tournament.

P.S. The rating limits are approximate and were meant to be for under 18 Open section. For other sections the rating groups are obviously different.

Libby2
29-04-2009, 07:50 PM
I think it's disappointing that this sort of discussion always rears its head when a thread is opened to promote an already awarded, already agreed, already planned event.

There is an AusJCL now - with which I have no involvement and no idea of what they are working towards. If there is a genuine movement for change to a flagship event (or what should be a flagship event) then put your hand up to be a part of the organisation that can make that happen rather than every year trundle out the same old complaints without a single thing happening to change things.

You can't change things via this BB (and I should know :rolleyes: ). You also can't keep suddenly "remembering" this issue just because somebody's here trying to promote an event awarded under existing structures.

There's also no point starting up some fabulous new thread to argue the structures of any future Aus Jnrs because I'm sure almost every argument has been run here before and I don't see anything happening as a consequence.

But if surveys have been done, AND discussions were had, AND this process is ongoing AND someone actually takes ownership of doing a proper and consultative review (with a broad stakeholder group and not just the loudest complainers) AND then puts up a detailed proposal for the structure of future events and the (mandatory) set of deliverables for those running them AND that gets voted upon by people who take an active role in managing Australian junior chess something might happen (or get blocked by those with vested interests, depending on your level of cynicism ...)

ER
29-04-2009, 08:49 PM
I think it's disappointing that this sort of discussion always rears its head when a thread is opened to promote an already awarded, already agreed, already planned event.
Hi Libby nice to see you back! :) I interpret this discussion as any other pressure group magnifying their efforts for expressing their views before important occasions such as elections etc!

There is an AusJCL now - with which I have no involvement and no idea of what they are working towards.
I would suggest you have a look in Kevin Bonham's interview in the "An Interview" thread. It contains lots of useful information there!

If there is a genuine movement for change to a flagship event (or what should be a flagship event) then put your hand up to be a part of the organisation that can make that happen rather than every year trundle out the same old complaints without a single thing happening to change things.
I don't really think there is such a movement, however, despite the fact that I agree with you that there is no time for drastic or even not so drastic changes now, on the other hand i see no reason for branding parents' concern as "trandling out the same old complaints" with no indication of actually doing something to change things!

You can't change things via this BB (and I should know :rolleyes: ).
I don't really know what the situation was at the initial stages of the existence of Chess Chat, however, and in particular the last 12 or so months my experience shows that this Forum is very well respected, taken very seriously and has contributed immencely to important improvements due to its wide spectrum of content and application.

You also can't keep suddenly "remembering" this issue just because somebody's here trying to promote an event awarded under existing structures.
If this is not simply a repetition of your introductory point, I think it requires some clarification

There's also no point starting up some fabulous new thread to argue the structures of any future Aus Jnrs because I'm sure almost every argument has been run here before and I don't see anything happening as a consequence.
Yes there is a point of starting a fabulous or not so fabulous thread on this topic. I want to have a thread where parents and juniors themselves, (btw I hope you have noticed the very encouraging junior participation in this forum:clap: :clap: :clap: ) can openly express their opinion about matters of concern!

But if surveys have been done, AND discussions were had, AND this process is ongoing AND someone actually takes ownership of doing a proper and consultative review (with a broad stakeholder group and not just the loudest complainers) AND then puts up a detailed proposal for the structure of future events and the (mandatory) set of deliverables for those running them AND that gets voted upon by people who take an active role in managing Australian junior chess something might happen (or get blocked by those with vested interests, depending on your level of cynicism ...)
All of the above concepts no matter how much are conjected with those desparately capitalised "ands" will mean absolutely nothing if we do not realise and accept that the questionable "gooddies" who will implement them and the fearful "baddies" who would sabotage them belong in our (sometimes overworked) imagination! So I don't really think it's cynicism the term that would best describe our approach and contribute to some positive outcome of this discussion! May I suggest participation instead?
Talking about participation, your active presence has been missed by many! :)

Oepty
29-04-2009, 09:15 PM
I would suggest you have a look in Kevin Bonham's interview in the "An Interview" thread. It contains lots of useful information there!

Kevin's interview gives no insight into what the AusJCL is planning to do with Australian Juniors beyond 2010



I don't really think there is such a movement, however, despite the fact that I agree with you that there is no time for drastic or even not so drastic changes now, on the other hand i see no reason for branding parents' concern as "trandling out the same old complaints" with no indication of actually doing something to change things!

This is a time of change within junior chess. We now have the AusJCL, probably the biggest change in junior chess in Australia. They are working hard to put changes in place, but they simply, having only taken over in January, 4 months ago, did not have time to implement any changes for Hobart this year. Kevin mentions as was made clear at the AusJCL AGM that the 2011 juniors is planned to be run under a different format.

Scott

Mischa
29-04-2009, 10:04 PM
hmmm
I would be interested in the stats about the average length of a game in the Aus Juniors
This is not world class guys...
I guess you need to consider who you are trying to get the money off.
But remember it is the parents that are footing the bill and providing the revenue...NOT the coaches or the organisers,.
parents are the backbone of junior chess...I think if you are asking thousands of dollars of them to continue chess in Australia then maybe they should have one of the loudest voices.
I feel Iam able to argue this now with objectivity as my son is now able to attend independently.
He missed MANY tournaments as did others due to the prohibitive costs. I hate to think that only the rich kids get better..there is a case in mind but ....

ER
29-04-2009, 10:20 PM
Kevin's interview gives no insight into what the AusJCL is planning to do with Australian Juniors beyond 2010
I am talking about this coming tournament in regards to Kevin's statement in which it is made clear AUSJCL has set requirements for this tournament's format!

(...) Of course, we are bound by the AUSJCL's requirements for the tournament format, (...)

and we know the AUSJCL believes it is too early to roll out a new format yet (with this probably the last such event in the current format), so we won't be doing anything radically different.
Do you understand now that my statement about no time for drastic changes refers to the above?
If yes, do you also understand that this statement of yours ...

This is a time of change within junior chess. We now have the AusJCL, probably the biggest change in junior chess in Australia (...)
... refers to some time in the future and has nothing to do with this particular tournament?
If yes, again, do you understand why I initially quoted Kevin and why I said that I agree with Libby that this time (between now and the tournament) does not allow for drastic changes?
If not, sorry, I can't do much nore about it! :)

kjenhager
29-04-2009, 10:22 PM
hmmm
I would be interested in the stats about the average length of a game in the Aus Juniors
This is not world class guys...
I guess you need to consider who you are trying to get the money off.
But remember it is the parents that are footing the bill and providing the revenue...NOT the coaches or the organisers,.
parents are the backbone of junior chess...I think if you are asking thousands of dollars of them to continue chess in Australia then maybe they should have one of the loudest voices.
I feel Iam able to argue this now with objectivity as my son is now able to attend independently.
He missed MANY tournaments as did others due to the prohibitive costs. I hate to think that only the rich kids get better..there is a case in mind but ....
That seems very rational .
Would a parent or two on the organising committee , help in this regard ?
Or even a parent representative to advise the committee ?

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 10:32 PM
That seems very rational .
Would a parent or two on the organising committee , help in this regard ?

In the case of Hobart two of the three members on the organising committee are parents who have both been to more than one Australian Junior with their (in each case plural) children!

However, the format is not the organising committee's call - it's the AUSJCL's. And the AUSJCL being newly formed did not want to make radical changes for this year. It may well do so for next year.

Mischa
29-04-2009, 11:03 PM
In the case of Hobart two of the three members on the organising committee are parents who have both been to more than one Australian Junior with their (in each case plural) children!

However, the format is not the organising committee's call - it's the AUSJCL's. And the AUSJCL being newly formed did not want to make radical changes for this year. It may well do so for next year.

I am so pleased to see the at the options are open for future events (glad that we all see it is not a fault of the Tassy event)
But in all fairness I have been arguing this since Perth...
With all appologies to Jenni, it was she who told me that the coaches demanded one game a day so they could coach lots of kids (not in those words, so please don't quote me)
I hear the kids saying they need time to prepare but REALLY!!!!
These are kids they play all the time!!!
the younger kids just want to get to the pool
the older kids have played each other that many times they should KNOW what they play and should have prepared months before
This is silly just plain silly to have only one game a day.......commmon you juniors who say they need the time...show me how it has helped? or just fed your coach?

Bill Gletsos
29-04-2009, 11:49 PM
hmmm
I would be interested in the stats about the average length of a game in the Aus Juniors
This is not world class guys...This should have nothing to do with what the avergae length of a game is in the Aus juniors.

It should be about what is the aim of the Aus Juniors.

If finding the best/strongest juniors in Australia and juniors going on to represent Australia overseas in various age groups then what conditions lead to that should be the most important aspect. Also important then would be what time controls are those juniors likely to pay overseas.

If simply getting maximum participation at the expense of chess quality for the top juniors is the aim then choose conditions that will do that.

Oepty
29-04-2009, 11:59 PM
I am talking about this coming tournament in regards to Kevin's statement in which it is made clear AUSJCL has set requirements for this tournament's format!


Do you understand now that my statement about no time for drastic changes refers to the above?
If yes, do you also understand that this statement of yours ...

... refers to some time in the future and has nothing to do with this particular tournament?
If yes, again, do you understand why I initially quoted Kevin and why I said that I agree with Libby that this time (between now and the tournament) does not allow for drastic changes?
If not, sorry, I can't do much nore about it! :)

I thought Libby was talking about changes in the future, not this coming year which is why I thought your comments refering to comments by Kevin about this coming year missed the point completely.
Libby ran the biggest and quite possibly the best ever juniors and still copped alot of unfounded criticism, including via this BB. It is therefore not surprising she isn't greatly involved anymore.
Scott

ER
30-04-2009, 12:16 AM
Bill, Kev, Scott, I was thinking of promoting the creation of a State based fund so at least each State Asc could provide support for the airfares of their junior reps in National Championships!
That could be in a collective co-operation amongst Club-State-Ausjcl- ACF! Do you think such an idea is realistic?

Bill Gletsos
30-04-2009, 12:18 AM
Bill, Kev, Scott, I was thinking of promoting the creation of a State based fund so at least each State Asc could provide support for the airfares of their junior reps in National Championships!
That could be in a collective co-operation amongst Club-State-Ausjcl- ACF! Do you think such an idea is realistic?You are looking at the situation through blinkered Mexican eyes.
States such as NSW, ACT, SA, WA have Junior chess leagues running junior chess in their states not State Associations.

Oepty
30-04-2009, 12:24 AM
Bill, Kev, Scott, I was thinking of promoting the creation of a State based fund so at least each State Asc could provide support for the airfares of their junior reps in National Championships!
That could be in a collective co-operation amongst Club-State-Ausjcl- ACF! Do you think such an idea is realistic?

By junior reps do you mean all juniors who have to travell from the state?
If so you are looking at alot of money. Even with cheap fares the average would quite possibly be around $200 each way. If you are looking at about 80 juniors travelling the it would be $32000 dollars. These figures are very much guesses, slightly educated.
If you mean only certain juniors are you meaning helping the financially disadvantaged or the best players.

An interesting idea.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2009, 12:24 AM
the older kids have played each other that many times they should KNOW what they play and should have prepared months before

These days with databases a lot of players will chop and change what they are playing specifically to stop other players from preparing for them so easily. But playing a line you've never played or rarely played requires preparation - as does preparing to play someone who you know usually plays line X but might on a given day play lines Y, Z or W instead.

Even at club level this sort of thing is an issue and just "knowing what someone plays" is often not effective preparation.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Bill, Kev, Scott, I was thinking of promoting the creation of a State based fund so at least each State Asc could provide support for the airfares of their junior reps in National Championships!
That could be in a collective co-operation amongst Club-State-Ausjcl- ACF! Do you think such an idea is realistic?

This is a matter for state junior chess leagues or state associations to decide for themselves and then see if they want to get clubs involved in fundraising.

When I played in the Aus Junior in 1988 the TCA had spare cash for whatever reason and several of us who went over received some small amount of assistance. In my case the TCA correctly assessed my prospects for the event as dim and only subsidised me to the tune of $50. (Worth more then than now of course.) But I think the TCA has only done this once or twice since. You have to be very careful how you target money in these cases.

Oepty
30-04-2009, 12:37 AM
These days with databases a lot of players will chop and change what they are playing specifically to stop other players from preparing for them so easily. But playing a line you've never played or rarely played requires preparation - as does preparing to play someone who you know usually plays line X but might on a given day play lines Y, Z or W instead.

Even at club level this sort of thing is an issue and just "knowing what someone plays" is often not effective preparation.

I haven't been involved with the coaching side of things at a juniors much. I hardly made it to the analysis/coaching rooms at all during the junior, but coaching is also about more than just opening preperation. It can help with all parts of a players game and also teach them how they should be studing and what they need to study to improve.

Having said that it is interesting that, if what I was told is correct, Cedric Antolis who won this years juniors did not have a coach with him in Adelaide.
Scott

Miranda
30-04-2009, 08:36 AM
This is silly just plain silly to have only one game a day.......commmon you juniors who say they need the time...show me how it has helped? or just fed your coach?
Mischa, I'm a low rated junior. I'm not the best at chess, and I need time to work on things. I can't prepare for opponents months in advance, because I'm not sure who'll I'll be playing, and they might change their opening just before the Juniors, in which case I'll have to prepare for that instead. From my perspective, one game a day produces better play, makes the tournament less stressful, and simply makes it a nicer tournament to play at.

Desmond
30-04-2009, 08:38 AM
Mischa, I'm a low rated junior. I'm not the best at chess, and I need time to work on things. I can't prepare for opponents months in advance, because I'm not sure who'll I'll be playing, and they might change their opening just before the Juniors, in which case I'll have to prepare for that instead. From my perspective, one game a day produces better play, makes the tournament less stressful, and simply makes it a nicer tournament to play at.Perhaps I can pose the question in a different way.

Suppose that you have the choice between
a 6-day tournament with 11 rounds, and
a 6-day tournament with 6 rounds.

Which do you prefer?

eclectic
30-04-2009, 02:02 PM
Perhaps I can pose the question in a different way.

Suppose that you have the choice between
a 6-day tournament with 11 rounds, and
a 6-day tournament with 6 rounds.

Which do you prefer?

A: an 11 day tournament with 11 rounds :hand:

Desmond
30-04-2009, 02:51 PM
A: an 11 day tournament with 11 rounds :hand: If you have budget for travel and accom etc for 6 days, would you prefer to play 11 games or 6?

Alana
30-04-2009, 03:03 PM
If you have budget for travel and accom etc for 6 days, would you prefer to play 11 games or 6?

6 probably. Though 6 round tournaments are just weird. I say more about this topic in that upcoming interviewy-thingy if anyone wants to know. :D

Denis_Jessop
30-04-2009, 04:29 PM
6 probably. Though 6 round tournaments are just weird. I say more about this topic in that upcoming interviewy-thingy if anyone wants to know. :D

How about 5 rounds with a Lightning/Rapid on the 6th day (not necessarily the last day)? :)

DJ

Alana
30-04-2009, 04:45 PM
How about 5 rounds with a Lightning/Rapid on the 6th day (not necessarily the last day)? :)

DJ

Ok stuff it - here is my answer to the question in the interview about how many rounds (take it as a sneak peek!)

JAK: Recently there has been a discussion about the number of games per day in junior championships! Some parents suggest 2 games a day reduce the expenses since tournaments won't last that long! Others say two games a day will affect the quality of games since players are getting tired! What's your opinion?

ALANA: From previous experience I’ve found the one round per day is much less stressful – two round days you have to prep, actually play the game (and with 90min+60s/m time control for the u18 tournaments can make it last quite long), get it analysed, then having a short amount of time to prep again (or not prep at all!) before another potentially long game. These types of days have the potential to not finish until 5pm if not later which can be very draining, especially for the younger players.

This type of format is fine if this was only once or twice during the tournament like it has been previously, but to have it run that way every day (11 rounds + the usual lightning, rapid and problem solving events reducing the tournament to about 8 days (only really losing 5 days or so)) can be quite stressful for the players. As far as I know, strong junior events overseas (World Youth etc) are run on a one game per day basis with the exception of one or two days so that players can have more time to prepare. For major (not junior) international events, tournaments can be run on a two games per day basis because the players have had a lot more experience using this type of format, and due to the players being generally older, they are able to cope as they don’t get tired as easily.

I see the point that parents have – the majority would prefer it being shorter so that the cost is reduced. However, parents should understand the stress this can put on us juniors – we are the reason why the parents go along in the first place so that we can play and represent our state in the nationals aren’t we?

bobby1972
30-04-2009, 04:49 PM
mischa dont worry,i dont think it matters if a player misses a few turneys.i think if they are going to improve they do.and your boy has, FM and all ,hes come a long way from when i first saw him play at begonia.

Nicholas D-C
30-04-2009, 05:15 PM
Is that James Morris?

eclectic
30-04-2009, 05:17 PM
yes

ER
30-04-2009, 05:59 PM
You are looking at the situation through blinkered Mexican eyes. better than an one eyed NSWman :P :owned:

States such as NSW, ACT, SA, WA have Junior chess leagues running junior chess in their states not State Associations. and what stops those leagues organising funds as the one I am proposing to plan in Victoria? :)

ER
30-04-2009, 06:16 PM
This is a matter for state junior chess leagues or state associations to decide for themselves and then see if they want to get clubs involved in fundraising.
yep, whichever initiative should be approved by them

You have to be very careful how you target money in these cases. I couldn't agree more!

ER
30-04-2009, 09:18 PM
By junior reps do you mean all juniors who have to travell from the state?
Yes Scott, I mean Juniors who will have to travel interstate to represent their own State in an Aus Junior Championship

If so you are looking at alot of money. Even with cheap fares the average would quite possibly be around $200 each way. If you are looking at about 80 juniors travelling the it would be $32000 dollars. These figures are very much guesses, slightly educated.
I mean each State looks after their own, except the State which organises the event of course. ie 10 Vic juniors go to Tassie for the 2010 Aus Jun Champ. Then the Vic authoriities would have to raise 10 x airfares price. That amount can be raised throughout the year by various fundraising activities.

If you mean only certain juniors are you meaning helping the financially disadvantaged or the best players.
I didn't think that way, however, that's also a very interesting option as long as it is exercised with subtlety and care so it would not result for certain kids presented as paupers or Centrerlink cases!

An interesting idea.
Thanks, I am going to push it forward as soon as I can!

Mischa
30-04-2009, 09:21 PM
LIBBY!! Great to see you back honey..:)
How is that gorgeous daughter of yours?
Still chessing?

eclectic
30-04-2009, 09:23 PM
LIBBY!! Great to see you back honey..:)
How is that gorgeous daughter of yours?
Still chessing?

i suspect it was a brief fLI BBY night appearance ;)

Mischa
30-04-2009, 09:44 PM
she does get a bit cross...:(

Oepty
30-04-2009, 10:55 PM
Yes Scott, I mean Juniors who will have to travel interstate to represent their own State in an Aus Junior Championship

I mean each State looks after their own, except the State which organises the event of course. ie 10 Vic juniors go to Tassie for the 2010 Aus Jun Champ. Then the Vic authoriities would have to raise 10 x airfares price. That amount can be raised throughout the year by various fundraising activities.

I didn't think that way, however, that's also a very interesting option as long as it is exercised with subtlety and care so it would not result for certain kids presented as paupers or Centrerlink cases!

Thanks, I am going to push it forward as soon as I can!

I think you would need to raise more than 10x airfares. There was 15 Victorians in Adelaide and 24 in Sydney the last two juniors. There probably was even more in Canberra but I can't get the numbers easily. An offer like what you are suggesting will almost certainly result in more interest so you could be looking at providing 30 or even 40 return airfares. If you make getting the money conditional on the juniors taking part in a number of fundraising activities then you might get a reasonable amount of help raising the money. I am also sure alot of people would be willing to help.

It might be possible to investigate other forms of transport (bus, train) which might work out cheaper although they might be alot less attractive limiting the interest. Perhaps it would sort out those who really need the help from those who could afford to fly anyway.

If money was provided on a needs basis who recieved the money and how much they recieved should be kept confidential. Stastics of how many were helped though could be made public.
Scott

Mischa
30-04-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't think she thinks that anyone outside of the ACT has any input in chess?
Libby you have to realise that many have done much that is not advertised or recognised. Be careful before you throw your bad vibes around.....you are an amazing person you just get it wrong a bit...:)

Mischa
30-04-2009, 11:25 PM
wait for it...

Mischa
30-04-2009, 11:44 PM
Actually Libby I'm being unfair by not telling you my attempts at involvement in chess at a junior level or indeed at any level.
You seem to assme (I said assume) that unless you are actually running an event that you have no significant input.
(At this point I must point out that Libby is magnificent in her event managment}
So Libby ...please let me know how I can ,in your terms, be allowed to contribute to a possible (not critical) questioning with a view to resolving issues ...but not here...so , where?

ER
30-04-2009, 11:55 PM
I think you would need to raise more than 10x airfares(...)
Hi again Scott the "ie" in

ie 10 Vic juniors go to Tassie for the 2010 Aus
indicates that the number is purely hypothetical since it is used only as an example!

Oepty
01-05-2009, 07:06 AM
Hi again Scott the "ie" in

indicates that the number is purely hypothetical since it is used only as an example!

Okay.
Scott

Nicholas D-C
01-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Hopefully NSW will be better represented in Tasmania. I think I was one of three in the Under 18 Open in Adelaide. Its lucky we have very successful Under 12's winning titles.

cadd1ct
01-05-2009, 08:13 PM
hey NDC! Its me.. jerry :) Anywayz... it is a big debate as to whether it should be a 1 round per day event or a 2 round per day event... maybe have the first 6 rounds as 2 rounds per day and then the last 5 1 round a day.. that way it doesnt go for too long and isn't too short. The last 5 rounds are the most important.... obviously the fight between the seeds begin there. I don't know....

j3rry

Nicholas D-C
01-05-2009, 08:34 PM
Interesting idea Jerry, but usually the top seeds begin to meet as early as round 3. Perhaps a double round on the first day, as well as the third day (as per Adelaide and Tasmania) would be an effective system, as everyone would still be fresh.

Oepty
02-05-2009, 12:56 AM
hey NDC! Its me.. jerry :) Anywayz... it is a big debate as to whether it should be a 1 round per day event or a 2 round per day event... maybe have the first 6 rounds as 2 rounds per day and then the last 5 1 round a day.. that way it doesnt go for too long and isn't too short. The last 5 rounds are the most important.... obviously the fight between the seeds begin there. I don't know....

j3rry

This idea saves 2 days, 10 days instead of 12 days, but might only save 1 nights accommadation. With the first round in the afternoon it would be possible to fly in on the morning, whereas having a morning round would make this nearly impossible. It still would save some money for parents, but not a great deal, although a saving of even a couple of hundred dollars might mean the difference between playing and not playing for some juniors.

I am also not sure that key matchups will not have started before round 7 when the tournament becomes 1 round per day. We also should consider not only the open section, but the girls sections with the smaller fields and how these tournaments would be effected.

Scott

Ninja
02-05-2009, 01:49 PM
This idea saves 2 days, 10 days instead of 12 days, but might only save 1 nights accommadation.
Scott

So what about a "middle of the road" alternative suggested earlier in the thread?.
9 rounds over 9 days. Still only 1 round a day but start on a Sat and finish on a Sunday. Effectively only 1 working week but allows 9 quality rounds.
Personally I also like the idea of starting the rounds at a "sensible" time.

ie 9:00 in the morning or 4:00 in the afternoon sounds good. Plenty of time during the day for players that wish to sit with a coach all day but also enough time to cater for families that wish to have a look around while they are there. As stated before a good start before making any changes would be to decide what is trying to be achieved. If all that is wanted is an elite tournament and no one cares about participation then leave it as it is (even though the top players don't seem to bother showing up). alternatively if the numbers attending are of interest then try catering to a broader range.
Make the tournament attractive to a greater range of players and the numbers (and most likely the quality of players) will look after themselves.The only reason for top players to attend at the moment is to get your name on a trophy. Once that is done there are far better tournaments to play elsewhere.

Miranda
02-05-2009, 02:19 PM
Ninja, 9am is far too early!

I think the round at around 1pm is a good time, after all you're there to play chess, not to sightsee.

Oepty
02-05-2009, 02:53 PM
So what about a "middle of the road" alternative suggested earlier in the thread?.
9 rounds over 9 days. Still only 1 round a day but start on a Sat and finish on a Sunday. Effectively only 1 working week but allows 9 quality rounds.
Personally I also like the idea of starting the rounds at a "sensible" time.

ie 9:00 in the morning or 4:00 in the afternoon sounds good. Plenty of time during the day for players that wish to sit with a coach all day but also enough time to cater for families that wish to have a look around while they are there. As stated before a good start before making any changes would be to decide what is trying to be achieved. If all that is wanted is an elite tournament and no one cares about participation then leave it as it is (even though the top players don't seem to bother showing up). alternatively if the numbers attending are of interest then try catering to a broader range.
Make the tournament attractive to a greater range of players and the numbers (and most likely the quality of players) will look after themselves.The only reason for top players to attend at the moment is to get your name on a trophy. Once that is done there are far better tournaments to play elsewhere.

Nine rounds might be enough, but what about rapid, lightning problem solving? Perhaps cutting them from the schedule is better than going for two rounds a day, I don't know.
As far as top players not turning up, a high rating does not mean they have more money available to travel than the lower rated players. I can also understand why they might choose to travel and play in stronger adult tournaments than the juniors.
I really am not sure which way is best to go, shorter might get more players although I suspect some players might choose not to play if it was 2 rounds per day.
It is a difficult problem which the AusJCL is working on, but it is a new body and it will take time. We are not going to solve any problems on this BB. Whatever happens in the future not everyone is going to be happy.
Scott

Oepty
02-05-2009, 03:00 PM
Ninja, 9am is far too early!

I think the round at around 1pm is a good time, after all you're there to play chess, not to sightsee.

While what you say is true for the chess players, the families of the chess players might well want to do other things rather than just live at the venue. This would be especially true when there are non playing children. A 1pm start is good but limits what other activities the family might be able to do. 4pm seems too late but perhaps 2:30pm might work. I guess it comes down as to whether you expect it to be treated as a elite competition by everybody or as part of a holiday experience.
Scott

Denis_Jessop
02-05-2009, 03:30 PM
While what you say is true for the chess players, the families of the chess players might well want to do other things rather than just live at the venue. This would be especially true when there are non playing children. A 1pm start is good but limits what other activities the family might be able to do. 4pm seems too late but perhaps 2:30pm might work. I guess it comes down as to whether you expect it to be treated as a elite competition by everybody or as part of a holiday experience.
Scott

These two posts (Miranda and Scott) raise one of the issues that the AusJCL is looking at, I believe, namely whether the Australian Junior championships are to be an elite level championship or an annual junior chess festival with a holiday atmosphere. The issue is quite genuine as, at present, the event is a sort of hybrid of both things though, as some have noted, the top juniors are tending to favour the Aus Championships or Open just as the world's top juniors by-pass the World Junior (u20) even though it may be intended to be an elite event.

DJ

Nicholas D-C
02-05-2009, 07:41 PM
I think the Juniors are losing the significance they once held. In Adelaide, the attendance was much lower. Before I became a serious player (or as serious as I am now) I read the reports from the Brisbane and Canberra juniors. Many more strong players were in attendance, and the title of national champion held a greater significance. Now there seems to be a growing preference for adult events like the Aus Championship, where more experience can be gained. This trend is probably due to the desire to face the greater challenges that adult events have to offer. Australia doesn't have many major tournaments, and the calibre of the Juniors is not very high. If the best junior players are not in attendance, how can someone rightly claim to be the Australian Junior Champion? It is a real shame that this has happened, but the event needs to attract the strongest players somehow. The location of the event may be an important factor. NSW, ACT, QLD and VIC players will not be as tempted to travel to TAS when Sydney is closer by. I believe the 2011 Juniors are taking place in Perth, but the Aus Championship is TBA. The AusJCL and ACF may need to give the location of future events serious thought. Holding the events in the same city is probably a good idea.

Alana
02-05-2009, 09:25 PM
Yeah I remember when Aus Juniors and Aus Champs were both being held in Brisbane, and this ended up allowing some juniors to play in the champs as well in the afternoon. NSW, ACT, QLD and VIC are where most juniors come from, and holding BOTH tournaments in one of those places would attract more players.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2009, 09:48 PM
Ninja, 9am is far too early!
Not only that, it's hideous, and many chessplayers are just as eophobic. But many organizers don't care what the majority of players clearly prefer (chess chat poll currently shows 24-2 night owl v morning lark preference with 10 abstaining (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7538)).


I think the round at around 1pm is a good time, after all you're there to play chess, not to sightsee.
Furthermore, it's the duty of tourney organizers to provide the best tournament conditions, not the best sightseeing opportunities.

Denis_Jessop
03-05-2009, 05:38 PM
Yeah I remember when Aus Juniors and Aus Champs were both being held in Brisbane, and this ended up allowing some juniors to play in the champs as well in the afternoon. NSW, ACT, QLD and VIC are where most juniors come from, and holding BOTH tournaments in one of those places would attract more players.

I take it that yoiu are referring to 2006. I thought that very few juniors played in the Championships. I know Moulthun Ly did but it seemed to affect his play. I think that having the two events in the same place (cf Canberra 2007; Sydney 2008) is fine but not at the same time.

DJ

Mischa
03-05-2009, 10:35 PM
I think we still have to consider what we are trying to achieve...to provide practice for national events seems wrong as in the past those selected to represent Australia often didn't play in the junior event.
The top junioors..TOP juniors seem to have little difficulty in playing 2 games a day.
The reason they don't play in the Aus junior..because...too expensive and way too long
B..too much too lose and little to gain
There is little other than (as has already been mentioned) other than a name on a trophy.
the prize money is insignificant to the top juniors who can often win more by winning a minor division elswhere
The winners of any given categorie are NOT guarenteed selection to represent Oz.
There is no real incentive for the top juniors to play in anAus junior championship;;;nothing to gain and all to lose.
To the juniors who are complaining about 2 games a day and starting early...remember that all the juniors would be playing under the same conditions.
I don't think many of the top juniors rely on coaches anymore......
I ask again ...whom does the current schedule suit more? the players? the parents or the coaches?.
Can we hear from some of the coaches?

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 10:49 PM
The one round a day schedule has been around a lot longer than the use of coaches at Australian Juniors.

It clearly is based on allowing the players to produce their best chess.

The format should be what gives rise to the best chess for what is the premier junior event in Australia.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:03 PM
asBill I agree but it clearly is not attracting the best players...Ray Song never played for example...yet was always selected (rightly so)
Do we want to ask the top juniors?
I will state that James did not play in Adelaide because it was too expensive and the billet was charging over $300 and Vlad very generously offered to billet for free in Sydney at a much more prestigious event!
The level of players in Adelaide offered nothing for James to gain and everything to lose...he would have been one of the top seeds.
rating points seem to remain important for juniors , particularly as they remain a means of selection...all the top juniors had to gain from the Aus junior was lost points

Saragossa
03-05-2009, 11:05 PM
Mischa. Bill is right the idea of the tournament isn't to be the ,ost conveniant at all costs. The idea of the tournament is to find the best junior player in Australia and to do this there can only be one round per day otherwise we would be producing sub standard results or people who are more suited to fast play have an advantage.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:09 PM
Oh so the best non junior players in Australia as played in the SIO and other major tournaments are sub standard or more suited to fast play....????

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Just focusing on Adelaide does not prove anything.

Most of the top juniors played in 2004 in Perth, 2005 in Mt. Buller, 2006 in Brisbane, 2007 in Canberra and 2008 in Sydney.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:12 PM
I think one of the best ideas is too omit the rest days...no one needs them really if only one round a day
Play the first day two rounds..and at least two other days two games...I think it is ridiculous to think that juinors need 4 hours to prepare and 4 hours to analyse...

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:14 PM
The top junior then was Ray Song...he didn't play
James was not a top junior for a lot of those so I cannot say

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:15 PM
Oh so the best non junior players in Australia as played in the SIO and other major tournaments are sub standard or more suited to fast play....????I believe that many strong players would suggest that 1 round per day leads to better chess than 2 rounds per day.

As such it could be argued that Queenstown with its one round per day leads to superior chess as opposed to the Doeberl Weekender and the SIO.

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:16 PM
I think one of the best ideas is too omit the rest days...no one needs them really if only one round a day
Play the first day two rounds..and at least two other days two games...I think it is ridiculous to think that juinors need 4 hours to prepare and 4 hours to analyse...And this is based on your experience as a chess player?

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:17 PM
I just know that many of us parents cannot afford the format as it stands so if you want to make this an elitist event for the richer parents then I have no argument

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:17 PM
The top junior then was Ray Song...he didn't play
James was not a top junior for a lot of those so I cannot sayYou have named one player.

I said most of the top juniors played not all.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:18 PM
And this is based on your experience as a chess player?
No Bill
as my experience as a parent of a junior chess player...and you? as a parent of a junior chessplayer????

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:22 PM
No Bill
as my experience as a parent of a junior chess playerThat does not mean you know what is the best time limit to play good chess.

...and you? as a parent of a junior chessplayer????No my experience as a chess player.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:25 PM
I don't want to make this personal Bill....
James attends or not independently now
It remains a fact as Jenni also agreed with, that the kids of the wealthier parents were the ones that improved in chess through regular attendance at Aus juniors and internantional events.
I hate to think that chess joins the ranks of those with the money excell
I have been lucky with the friends James has formed over the years who have helped him with billeting etc.
If it wasn't for the contribution of some chess mums many kids would not be able to play interstate at all

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:27 PM
Do not make the mistake of thinking that as a senior chess player you are attune with the needs of a juinor chess player or those of his family.
If it is too hard for the family the junior does not attend!!!

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:29 PM
I just know that many of us parents cannot afford the format as it stands so if you want to make this an elitist event for the richer parents then I have no argumentOf course the Australian Junior is an elite event.

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:31 PM
Do not make the mistake of thinking that as a senior chess player you are attune with the needs of a juinor chess player or those of his family.I did not say that.

I do however believe that chess players are better at judging what time controls lead to better chess as opposed to non chess playing parents.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:33 PM
For heavens sake Bill it is NOT an elitist event when the top juniors don't attend...what on earth makes it an elitist event if anyone and anyone can enter?Doesn't elitist suggest limited entry to those that have qualified? It is elitist only in that over the years only the rich kids can continue to enter

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:37 PM
Just quietly ...junior chess players at the level of most at the juniors are a different breed...and I would suggest that as a parent and a qualified teacher I would have a better idea of what suits most children's needs in reguards to concentration,,,indeed if you want the best chess from children then 10 o'clock in the morning is best..unless they have entered puberty then midday works well.
No child of any age needs 12 hours to prepare for a chess game

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2009, 11:50 PM
For heavens sake Bill it is NOT an elitist event when the top juniors don't attend...You have not shown they did not attend.

You cited only one person, Raymond Song.

You have ignored my post above.

Focusing on Adelaide does not prove anything.

Most of the top juniors played in 2004 in Perth, 2005 in Mt. Buller, 2006 in Brisbane, 2007 in Canberra and 2008 in Sydney.



It is elitist only in that over the years only the rich kids can continue to enterThere are lots of sports where elite juniors have to bear the burden of cost.

You may not like it but it is the way of the world.

Mischa
03-05-2009, 11:53 PM
Elitist doesn not mean anyone and everyone....

Saragossa
03-05-2009, 11:59 PM
Oh so the best non junior players in Australia as played in the SIO and other major tournaments are sub standard or more suited to fast play....????

Yes. The games played in tournaments with two rounds per day produce chess at a lower quality. Incoveniant I agree but it's just how it is. And how it should be in the best interest of the chess player.

Mischa
04-05-2009, 12:01 AM
So first define what you want the junior to be...an elitist event that requires qualification..or a money making all in...(neither are negative)
I once suggested...yes me...that two events were run simultaneously.
An open and a championship.
Like a championship and a Challenger or Qualifyier..

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 12:04 AM
So first define what you want the junior to be...an elitist event that requires qualification..or a money making all in...(neither are negative)I said that back in post #44 in this thread.


It should be about what is the aim of the Aus Juniors.

If finding the best/strongest juniors in Australia and juniors going on to represent Australia overseas in various age groups then what conditions lead to that should be the most important aspect. Also important then would be what time controls are those juniors likely to pay overseas.

If simply getting maximum participation at the expense of chess quality for the top juniors is the aim then choose conditions that will do that.

Mischa
04-05-2009, 12:07 AM
Bill back to what I said...the winners are not necessarily those that are chosen to play overseas
Saragossa..the emphasis on PLAYERS was a tad insulting and ill informed
I have not hung around tournaments for many years and picked up nothing.
Ask any parent here if they have learned anything about player stamina and concentration and playing ability over a day when it comes to their child...

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 12:13 AM
Bill back to what I said...the winners are not necessarily those that are chosen to play overseasSo what.
I did not say the Australian Junior was the be all and end all for overseas selection just that it was the premier junior event.

Saragossa..the emphasis on PLAYERS was a tad insulting and ill informedThe same could be said about your comments, given a number of juniors have stated they prefer 1 round per day.

I have not hung around tournaments for many years and picked up nothing.
Ask any parent here if they have learned anything about player stamina and concentration and playing ability over a day when it comes to their child...That does not make them a good judge of what is good chess.

Mischa
04-05-2009, 12:14 AM
I was hoping to try and find a resolution..trying to work out a formula to help..not this stuff Bill. I don't think you are helping.
I will leave it to you experts...I would know nothing

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 12:21 AM
I was hoping to try and find a resolution..trying to work out a formula to help..not this stuff Bill. I don't think you are helping.
I will leave it to you experts...I would know nothingPeople have been discussing the aim of the Australian Junior for years.
I seriously doubt it is about to solved via a bulletin board discussion.

No doubt the AusJCL Council will consider the feedback from its survey along with the pros and cons and make a decision.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2009, 12:23 AM
I will state that James did not play in Adelaide because it was too expensive and the billet was charging over $300 and Vlad very generously offered to billet for free in Sydney at a much more prestigious event!

I'm still curious about this pay-for-billet business.

Did you seek or were you offered a free billet in Adelaide at any stage?

Is it the case that these pay-for-billet offers were actually organised through a private firm (as is of course their right) and not through the organisers?


The level of players in Adelaide offered nothing for James to gain and everything to lose...he would have been one of the top seeds.
rating points seem to remain important for juniors , particularly as they remain a means of selection...all the top juniors had to gain from the Aus junior was lost points

The major junior events are selected by selection panels. It is only those where selections are organised at short notice (much less common now than a couple of years ago) that ratings are employed.

Selectors are generally pretty good at spotting when a rating is unrepresentative and taking that into account. Having been involved in some Australian junior selections I'm certainly well aware that juniors are at greater risk of losing points in all-junior competitions where they are among the highest seeds.

In my view while the most elite juniors may often skip the Aus Junior it remains an excellent event for encouraging the next tier to improve to the stage where they may step up to that level.

Mischa
04-05-2009, 12:23 AM
yes

Mischa
04-05-2009, 12:34 AM
I'm still curious about this pay-for-billet business.

Did you seek or were you offered a free billet in Adelaide at any stage?

Is it the case that these pay-for-billet offers were actually organised through a private firm (as is of course their right) and not through the organisers?



The major junior events are selected by selection panels. It is only those where selections are organised at short notice (much less common now than a couple of years ago) that ratings are employed.

Selectors are generally pretty good at spotting when a rating is unrepresentative and taking that into account. Having been involved in some Australian junior selections I'm certainly well aware that juniors are at greater risk of losing points in all-junior competitions where they are among the highest seeds.

In my view while the most elite juniors may often skip the Aus Junior it remains an excellent event for encouraging the next tier to improve to the stage where they may step up to that level.

I was not offered a free billet in Adelaide..I posted here and asked but with no result.
I had people approach the organisers who said there were no billets.
I heard that one mother said that if they were going to billet in this day and age they should be paid
I eventually heard from a coach that he was willing to get me a billet but it would cost around $350...not sure if that was a week or not
Cedric I know paid at least that
In the end thanks to the efforst of some wonderful friends James was offered a free billet but by that stage I had accepted Vlad's offer.
It was sad given that I have billeted so many chess players over the years.
Some parents have spoken to me about this and their disappointment over the attitude in Adelaide

Miranda
04-05-2009, 08:00 AM
As far as I can see, most (if not all) juniors who have posted in this thread prefer the 1 game per day schedule. I think that although the parents might find this a bit hard to deal with, it's only once a year, and don't parents want to see their child playing the best chess they possibly can?

Vlad
04-05-2009, 11:06 AM
As far as I can see, most (if not all) juniors who have posted in this thread prefer the 1 game per day schedule. I think that although the parents might find this a bit hard to deal with, it's only once a year, and don't parents want to see their child playing the best chess they possibly can?

Miranda, if you look at my post #35 you will find explanation why most juniors who have posted prefer 1 game a day. They all belong to group A, which is the middle of tournament strength.

My observation is that only juniors from group A post on this forum, with the only one counter example of therealdeal. If you run a poll you would get almost 100% support for 1 game a day. Do you think this poll will represent the opinions of all juniors who play in the championship?

Vlad
04-05-2009, 11:40 AM
I think the trade off here is very simple.

There are about 15-20 elite players, the majority of whom would prefer 2 game a day. There are about 45-60 middle strength players, the majority of whom will prefer 1 game a day. There are about 100+ “tourists” or potential “tourists” (this term is being used in Europe for players who have no chance of winning the tournament they play in), the majority of whom would prefer 2 games a day.

So now the question is which group is more important? It looks like the current argument runs approximately the following way. Let us disregard the opinion of tourists; they are not serious chess players, are they? Now if we look at the remaining poll of about 60-80 players it is clear that 1 game/day is supported by 75 % majority.

Now regarding the experience for the World Youth, I do not think the Australian Juniors give much experience to the elite players, because the current standard is not high enough (and it will never be, this is why they are elite players). If we want our juniors to do well in the World Youth, it would probably be a good idea to have the Australian Open/Championship run 1 game a day. This is one of competitions where juniors get real experience.

ER
04-05-2009, 02:54 PM
Unless the above is a sorry and failed excuse for a joke, it can be classified as a blatant, insensitive and as such contemptible and insulting demonstration against our juniors.
Australian kids are learning from a young age to compete in every sport on equal basis, with a great sense of fair go and fair play, to respect their opponents and to produce their best according to their abilities!
When they go up there to compete they go for a fight and they do so to win, regardless how strong their opponents are!
No segregation to first, business, economy and tourist classes for our kids please!
They don't go up there to just fill the numbers and to pay for the elite's winning prizes. They go up there to enjoy themselves and in doing so to produce their best! And good on' em for that!
PS I don't care what happens in Europe! This is Australia!

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 03:10 PM
Australian kids are learning from a young age to compete in every sport on equal basis, with a great sense of fair go and fair play, to respect their opponents and to produce their best according to their abilities!Most junior sports where an Australian title is on the line do not just let you enter and participate just because you feel like having a go.

Ninja
04-05-2009, 03:14 PM
I think the trade off here is very simple.

There are about 15-20 elite players, the majority of whom would prefer 2 game a day. There are about 45-60 middle strength players, the majority of whom will prefer 1 game a day. There are about 100+ “tourists” or potential “tourists” (this term is being used in Europe for players who have no chance of winning the tournament they play in), the majority of whom would prefer 2 games a day.

So now the question is which group is more important? It looks like the current argument runs approximately the following way. Let us disregard the opinion of tourists; they are not serious chess players, are they? Now if we look at the remaining poll of about 60-80 players it is clear that 1 game/day is supported by 75 % majority.


Anyone thought that the fact that the opinions of the "tourists" (in this and many other things) are regularly disregarded might have something to do with why so few juniors continue on with "serious" (ie club) chess?? So do you cater for the masses or ignore them ?

Having said that my son is quite clear he has no intention of attending if it is more than 1 game a day.

ER
04-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Most junior sports where an Australian title is on the line do not just let you enter and participate just because you feel like having a go.
I am talking about competition in general here, in response to the group segregation of elite, middle strength, tourists and potential tourists, and not of title or non title events!

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 03:22 PM
I am talking about competition in general here, in response to the group segregation of elite, middle strength, tourists and potential tourists, and not of title or non title events!But you responded to drug who was quite clearly talking about the Australian Juniors which is a title event and not just some competition in general.

ER
04-05-2009, 03:27 PM
But you responded to drug who was quite clearly talking about the Australian Juniors which is a title event and not just some competition in general.
Bill, I am responding to his reference to groups of strength; note that he is talking about huge numbers of juniors who would react differently etc! I am not referring to the title event!!!

Vlad
04-05-2009, 03:30 PM
Anyone thought that the fact that the opinions of the "tourists" (in this and many other things) are regularly disregarded might have something to do with why so few juniors continue on with "serious" (ie club) chess?? So do you cater for the masses or ignore them ?

Yes, that is the question and there is no easy answer to this question. Experince of other countries shows that most of them have exactly the same dilemma.



Having said that my son is quite clear he has no intention of attending if it is more than 1 game a day.

Well, on a personal level we prefer 1 game a day for the next year in Hobart(my son will still be middle strength). :)

arosar
04-05-2009, 03:37 PM
What is a chess tourist?

Here's a little tidbit of history by Mig: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/01/corus-09-r8-and-a-tourist-shall-lead-them.htm

AR

Alana
04-05-2009, 03:42 PM
Most junior sports where an Australian title is on the line do not just let you enter and participate just because you feel like having a go.

I personally think that you can't just participate here either. At least in ACT (correct me if I'm wrong) we have to have either played an Aus Juniors beforehand or get the current president to endorse us.

Denis_Jessop
04-05-2009, 03:45 PM
I think the trade off here is very simple.

There are about 15-20 elite players, the majority of whom would prefer 2 game a day. There are about 45-60 middle strength players, the majority of whom will prefer 1 game a day. There are about 100+ “tourists” or potential “tourists” (this term is being used in Europe for players who have no chance of winning the tournament they play in), the majority of whom would prefer 2 games a day.

So now the question is which group is more important? It looks like the current argument runs approximately the following way. Let us disregard the opinion of tourists; they are not serious chess players, are they? Now if we look at the remaining poll of about 60-80 players it is clear that 1 game/day is supported by 75 % majority.

Now regarding the experience for the World Youth, I do not think the Australian Juniors give much experience to the elite players, because the current standard is not high enough (and it will never be, this is why they are elite players). If we want our juniors to do well in the World Youth, it would probably be a good idea to have the Australian Open/Championship run 1 game a day. This is one of competitions where juniors get real experience.

I think these are very good points. The reference to "tourists" is by no means insulting and is a representation of what actually happens. As I mentioned in an earlier post on this topic one of the issues is whether the Australian Junior Championships (which, it must not be forgotten, include age titles as well as the "absolute" title) should be run as a purely elite event or whether it should be in effect an Australian Junior Chess Festival with competing tourists or even be re-structured to accommodate both. I don't know what the AusJCL's view on this will be but I know it is an issue that was/is under consideration by it.

On another aspect, selection for overseas events is not really relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out, but I mention that it is a condition of selection for the Ergas squad that the person must have competed in the most recent Australian Junior Championships or Australian Championships/Open. That gives players the option.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2009, 04:01 PM
I personally think that you can't just participate here either. At least in ACT (correct me if I'm wrong) we have to have either played an Aus Juniors beforehand or get the current president to endorse us.That appears to be a local ACT condition.
To the best of my knowledge no such restriction on entry has been enforced by the ACF in the past.

Denis_Jessop
04-05-2009, 05:29 PM
That appears to be a local ACT condition.
To the best of my knowledge no such restriction on entry has been enforced by the ACF in the past.

There is no ACF condition of that kind and hasn't been for a long time, if at all - certainly not in the last 12 years. It must be an ACTJCL condition.

DJ

Ninja
05-05-2009, 12:01 AM
There is no ACF condition of that kind and hasn't been for a long time, if at all - certainly not in the last 12 years. It must be an ACTJCL condition.

DJ
Interesting couple of posts. Shows the level of knowledge regarding what actually occurs.
Alana may not have articulated it totally correctly however if you have a look at the entry form from the last few years its states quite clearly that if you have not previously played in a Australian Juniors tournament you are required to have your entry endorsed by an office holder of your state chess association.
When querying why it was necessary for a kid with a rating well over 1000 to have someone sign off on his ability to compete in the U12's we were told it was an ACF requirement.

ie from Adelaide 2009 http://www.sajuniorchess.org/AustJunior2009/AusJnrEntry%20Form.pdf (run by SAJCL on behalf of AJCL on behalf of ACF)
And identical wording available for Sydney 2008 at http://www.nswjcl.org.au/AustralianJunior/2008/index.htm (run by nswjcl on behalf of ACF)
Endorsement (to be completed by authorised State association or Junior League official)
Entry approved on behalf of:
By:
Office held:
Phone Number(s): (h) (m)
Signature:

Alana
05-05-2009, 08:59 AM
...ie from Adelaide 2009 http://www.sajuniorchess.org/AustJunior2009/AusJnrEntry%20Form.pdf (run by ACTJCL)...
You mean SAJCL :)

And yeah, it didn't come out correctly but that is what I meant.

Ninja
05-05-2009, 11:13 AM
You mean SAJCL :)
You are right again! (fixed it)

Denis_Jessop
05-05-2009, 12:32 PM
Interesting couple of posts. Shows the level of knowledge regarding what actually occurs.
Alana may not have articulated it totally correctly however if you have a look at the entry form from the last few years its states quite clearly that if you have not previously played in a Australian Juniors tournament you are required to have your entry endorsed by an office holder of your state chess association.
When querying why it was necessary for a kid with a rating well over 1000 to have someone sign off on his ability to compete in the U12's we were told it was an ACF requirement.

ie from Adelaide 2009 http://www.sajuniorchess.org/AustJunior2009/AusJnrEntry%20Form.pdf (run by SAJCL on behalf of AJCL on behalf of ACF)
And identical wording available for Sydney 2008 at http://www.nswjcl.org.au/AustralianJunior/2008/index.htm (run by nswjcl on behalf of ACF)
Endorsement (to be completed by authorised State association or Junior League official)
Entry approved on behalf of:
By:
Office held:
Phone Number(s): (h) (m)
Signature:

I know perfectly well what occurs being an ACF VP, among other things. The requirement you speak of has nothing to do with one's ability to compete and is in 99.99% of cases a formality. It can be used in cases where the player is in some trouble with his or her State Association, for example, some kind of misconduct, but is rarely used. I am aware of only one recent (in the last 12 years) example , and that not in a junior event. Note also that the ACF requirement applies to a State Association, not a Junior Chess League - see By-laws for ACF Tournaments, by-law 26.

DJ

Ninja
05-05-2009, 02:26 PM
I know perfectly well what occurs being an ACF VP, among other things. The requirement you speak of has nothing to do with one's ability to compete and is in 99.99% of cases a formality. It can be used in cases where the player is in some trouble with his or her State Association, for example, some kind of misconduct, but is rarely used. I am aware of only one recent (in the last 12 years) example , and that not in a junior event. Note also that the ACF requirement applies to a State Association, not a Junior Chess League - see By-laws for ACF Tournaments, by-law 26.

DJInteresting that at no time do you try and say that my post is not factually correct and the extract from the last two years entry forms quite clearly show it as a requirement and yet in your earlier post you claim it is not.

In this post you admit that it is a requirement (and by default that your earlier post was incorrect) and then start on about it being a formality. Would it not be simpler to just admit that you had overlooked this quite clearly stated (and enforced) requirement rather than trying to explain that you know everything.

Personally it gives me the impression that you enjoy the titles etc but have very little "practical" interaction with whats going on. Just because it is a formality in your mind does not magically remove the fact that it is a requirement of entry to the tournament that has been put in place by the ACF.

Brian_Jones
05-05-2009, 02:40 PM
Personally it gives me the impression that you enjoy the titles etc but have very little "practical" interaction with whats going on. Just because it is a formality in your mind does not magically remove the fact that it is a requirement of entry to the tournament that has been put in place by the ACF.

Hang on a minute there Ninja. I thought I was the only one prepared to sacrifice my chess career by being publically critical of the ACF and/or the AusJCL (even when I am right!) :) ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2009, 03:31 PM
Interesting that at no time do you try and say that my post is not factually correct and the extract from the last two years entry forms quite clearly show it as a requirement and yet in your earlier post you claim it is not.

In this post you admit that it is a requirement (and by default that your earlier post was incorrect) and then start on about it being a formality. Would it not be simpler to just admit that you had overlooked this quite clearly stated (and enforced) requirement rather than trying to explain that you know everything.

Personally it gives me the impression that you enjoy the titles etc but have very little "practical" interaction with whats going on. Just because it is a formality in your mind does not magically remove the fact that it is a requirement of entry to the tournament that has been put in place by the ACF.I like Denis am fully au fait of the ACF by-laws.

Now Alana's post was in response to mine which was in response to Justaknight's.

I know for a fact since i wrote it that my meaning in my response to Jak's post was that it was that Australian titles in other sports were not open to everyone but based on ability.
With that being the context of my post, I took Alana's reply that the endorsement she referred to was regarding sufficient playing strength and nothing more, especially given that having played in a previous Australian Junior has nothing to do with any ACF by-law.

It was with that in mind that I replied that here was no such ACF restriction.
It is clear to me that Denis's response was based on the same context as my reply.

Hopefully that clarifies any confusion between Alana's post and Denis's and my response.

Brian_Jones
05-05-2009, 03:44 PM
I know perfectly well what occurs being an ACF VP, among other things. The requirement you speak of has nothing to do with one's ability to compete and is in 99.99% of cases a formality. DJ

The requirement for state approval has been there for at least the last twenty years.

It ensured that only good players were allowed to play in the Australian Junior Championship (others could play in the reserves or equivalent).

It has never been a formality. I have needed to sign on behalf of many players who were unknown to the organisers at that time. On one occasion I signed for the little-known younger brother of a future Australian Junior Champion!

Yes Ninja, Denis (and others) should work nearer to the coalface more often!

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2009, 03:53 PM
The requirement for state approval has been there for at least the last twenty years.

It ensured that only good players were allowed to play in the Australian Junior Championship (others could play in the reserves or equivalent).

It has never been a formality. I have needed to sign on behalf of many players who were unknown to the organisers at that time. On one occasion I signed for the little-known younger brother of a future Australian Junior Champion!

Yes Ninja, Denis (and others) should work nearer to the coalface more often!But it is quite clear that what Ninja is referring is covered by By-Law 27 and that as far as I am aware has only been in place from around 1993 or 1994, not 20 years ago. By-law 27 in practice and in intent is not based on player strength.

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2009, 04:24 PM
That by-law can be used by a state association, at least in the way it is worded, to screen based on playing strength and I recall raising the possibility of doing so as a point in its advantage in discussions now and then. But hardly any state association ever does so.

I can recall saying that at TCA level I would probably support using it to prevent a player from competing if in our opinion the player was so weak that it would be detrimental to their playing future to do so. Then again this is a bigger issue for us here than in some other states. During a weak period in junior chess here we had one school that went to the ASTC and got absolutely wiped, and found the whole thing a quite unpleasant experience. The effect on that school was so severe that they will not, even now several years later, go to the Chess Kids nationals (where they would be quite competitive.)

ER
05-05-2009, 08:02 PM
I like Denis am fully au fait of the ACF by-laws. Now, Alana's post was in response to mine which was in response to Justaknight's. I know for a fact since i wrote it that my meaning in my response to Jak's post was that it was that Australian titles in other sports were not open to everyone but based on ability.
With that being the context of my post, I took Alana's reply that the endorsement she referred to was regarding sufficient playing strength and nothing more, especially given that having played in a previous Australian Junior has nothing to do with any ACF by-law.
It was with that in mind that I replied that here was no such ACF restriction (...)
That's exactly how I interpreted it too; I thought Bill's reference was very clear!

Oepty
06-05-2009, 06:10 PM
What is an elite junior?

That is the question that came to me and needs to be answered if the Australian Juniors is going to move towards focusing on their needs more than a mass participation event it sort of is now.
Scott

Mischa
06-05-2009, 07:26 PM
good question...if you start with a rating cut off you may discard those improvers or those that have had a bad tournament
I was going to suggest that states elect two or three or whatever but that can create better juniors form "top heavy" states missing out..

Mischa
06-05-2009, 07:31 PM
Perhaps those "seasoned performers?" Though this may eliminate newbies in the short term it may actually encourage them to continue to improve
If you make it super elitist then only the top (6?) from each age level from each state based on performace in the state champs?...with review for those who had a baddy?
I hate though to continue the seemingly bad blood between states..it often seems not like an Australian junior championship but more like a one upmanship statewise.
It hurts chess I think to focus on a state level
(but I don't play chess so...)

Denis_Jessop
06-05-2009, 08:48 PM
I think that interState rivalry at the junior playing level is largely a matter of friendly rivalry as far as the kids are concerned. On the other hand so-called "States' Rights" are the bane of the ACF. That is why I am horrified at the thought that the State Associations could use the ACF by-laws to select players for the Australian Junior Championships. Moreover the situation would be absurd if some States did that and others didn't. The participation of players in an ACF event, for example, the Australian Juniors, is a matter for the ACF/ AusJCL, not for the States.

DJ

PS for Brian: I am rather closer to the "coal face" of junior chess than you apparently realise having been closely associated with the formation of the AusJCL and, in earlier years, having attended almost all Committee meetings of the ACTJCL over several years in my capacity as ACTCA President and having DOP'd some of their events.

Mischa
06-05-2009, 08:58 PM
Denis I agree..the kids don't care where they come from..it seems to be the adults that stress the state of origin.

Denis_Jessop
06-05-2009, 10:34 PM
Denis I agree..the kids don't care where they come from..it seems to be the adults that stress the state of origin.

Actually kids are great - they really enjoy the game and also use it as a means of social networking and making friends. That is one argument in favour of a Junior Championships that caters for all kinds of players in some way or another. Adult chess players are a bit different though even they enjoy meeting old friends or acquaintances at the Australian Championships or the like.

DJ

Vlad
14-06-2009, 06:23 PM
It is interesting to compare how countries similar to Australia organize their nationals. By similar countries I mean Canada, Eangland and the USA.

1) Canadian Youth Championship has a 4-day tournament with 7 rounds, 2 rounds per day on the first 3 days and 1 round on the last day. They have separate sections for each of the age groups unless less than 8 kids show up. The winner of each section gets $1000 towards his/her travel expenses to the World Youth.

See http://monroi.com/2009-canadian-youth-chess-championship-players.html

2) British Youth Championship is a 1-day tournament for under 8, 5-6-day tournament for everybody else except for under 18 who play in the main event with adults. Except for under 18 all other divisions play 2 or more games a day. They have separate sections for each of the age groups.

See http://www.britishchess09.com/main_events_09.htm

3) The US Youth Championship is a 3-day event with 7 rounds. They have separate sections for each of the age groups.


See http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8026/319/