PDA

View Full Version : Chess Victoria proposed changes / David Cordover running for President



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ian Rout
20-08-2009, 11:14 AM
Well it has the potential to lead to interesting developments.

Do our Victorian readers know if this is a challenge to the existing regime, or is that regime intending to step down after the current term?

Desmond
20-08-2009, 11:50 AM
Well if chess guru must wait for the next CV AGM I hope he isn't holding his breath.

WhiteElephant
20-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Well what an announcement.

First I note that Mr Cordover is offering to make a more personal apology to anyone who would like one. You are welcome to contact me with your apology, Mr Cordover, I would like one.

Another good step would be to stop naming your tournaments with titles which suggest they are official CV events, and advertising them in such a manner as to give this impression. How about using 'Chess Kids' instead of 'Victorian' in the title?

I also note that in Mr Cordover's radical new proposal he wants to sub-let the bookshop in the proposed CV Chess Centre to a private business. Well I wonder which business would get preference on that one?

Excuse me if I am.....ahem...sceptical. I have no doubt that Leonid Sandler (while owning and operating a private chess business) is on the CV Executive for the good of CV. I have serious doubts that this would be the case with Mr Cordover.

WhiteElephant
20-08-2009, 02:25 PM
Reading my post again I realise that perhaps I sound a little one sided due to my personal experiences with Mr Cordover. It is my opinion and I stand by it. Feel free to read Mr Cordover's announcements for yourself and make up your own mind.

PS. Thanks Bill.

Mischa
20-08-2009, 02:35 PM
I don't think there has been a CV committee that hasn't had a vested interest in some form or other.
Is there anyclub that has a completely unbiased committee?

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2009, 02:58 PM
I don't think there has been a CV committee that hasn't had a vested interest in some form or other.
Is there anyclub that has a completely unbiased committee?

I think the important part is not the biases and conflicts of interest (which are inevitable) but how you manage them to prevent them from creating bad decisions. So for instance on the TCA or HICC committees, every time I'm aware something has any real connection to Chess Kids I declare my conflict of interest and abstain from voting on it; ditto at ACF level.

Denis_Jessop
20-08-2009, 04:24 PM
Noddy has made a very insightful 2-line post over there about my contribution. Good work, Noddy, refuting my points.

I have no hesitation in declaring my interest. My name is George Zaprudsky and I run a rival chess business, zedChess.

Does anyone know who this (rather cowardly) individual Noddy is? Perhaps he will own up himself but I doubt it. lf anyone knows can you please PM me. Thanks.

Noddy's posts in the past have been so inane that I have concluded that he must be aTo0o0lsie hydra as nobody else there is so vacuous except perhaps Thomas Bishop (?T00oolsie).

Your point about DC naming events to sound as if they are CV events is something that the ACF has encountered at national level also. It may well be illegal as passing off the event as something that it is not. I see that his likely conflict of interest has also had an airing on the Toolbox. I would see it as almost certain in light of the situation existing in Victoria. Are the bookies taking any odds on whether his attempt will be more effective than his ACF Presidential one in 2005?

DJ

ER
20-08-2009, 06:37 PM
Well if chess guru must wait for the next CV AGM I hope he isn't holding his breath.
I love this kid! :) :lol:

Watto
20-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Reading my post again I realise that perhaps I sound a little one sided due to my personal experiences with Mr Cordover. It is my opinion and I stand by it. Feel free to read Mr Cordover's announcements for yourself and make up your own mind.

PS. Thanks Bill.
I decided to delete my post as, unlike yourself, I don't have any particular negative experience with David myself. He's always been perfectly okay to me (there's been no business relationship at all.) I decided it was unfair to make a comment based on the experiences of others. It's really up to them to work out whether they accept his apology or not.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2009, 08:09 PM
Well if chess guru must wait for the next CV AGM I hope he isn't holding his breath.

:lol:

Bill Gletsos
20-08-2009, 08:30 PM
Well if chess guru must wait for the next CV AGM I hope he isn't holding his breath.I believe at a recent meeting of Victorian chess club Presidents with the CV Executive that it was confirmed the CV AGM would be on Sunday 29th November.

ChessGuru
20-08-2009, 11:01 PM
First I note that Mr Cordover is offering to make a more personal apology to anyone who would like one. You are welcome to contact me with your apology, Mr Cordover, I would like one.

Dear George, I am sorry you feel like that. Please let me know what specifically I can do to facilitate a reconciliation.

The apology was directed to "chess players and administrators"...I would be more than happy to direct a personal, explicit apology to you in your capacity in one of those roles if you can be somewhat clearer as to the nature of your offense.

For anyone interested in making a constructive contribution to the debate I would love to hear your ideas, comments and suggestions. You will know from having read the announcement that in the interest of readability and user-convenience I will be responding to all discussion exclusively on *******... you are welcome to add your comments on that forum.

Our starting point is the VISION (http://www.*******.com.au/chess-victoria-election-coverage/1184-chess-victoria-vision.html) of Chess Victoria.

Mischa
20-08-2009, 11:05 PM
This shows your sense of what is right.
This is not always the case with others.
I have to stand with Watto...I have no issues with David.
Actually, given what I have seen him accomplish, and given that he has been the only person (other than Hacche has for James) who has seen fit to mentor and sponser the top Vic juniors............
I have to say I would give him a hearing
apart from Leonard, no one in CV seems interested in furthering the chess of some of the top kids

Mischa
20-08-2009, 11:06 PM
above post directed at KB

Davidflude
20-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Hi all there is a discussion on the other forum which is of considerable interest.

David Cordover is planning to stand for president of Chess Victoria with a raft of proposals.

For example he proposes direct membership of Chess Victoria which would be compulsory for all persons who play in Chess Victoria tournaments and costs $50 per annum.

Read the discussions, make your own postings and make up your own mind.

THIS ISSUE MATTERS.

ER
20-08-2009, 11:10 PM
This issue definitely matters and it should be a subject of discussion in all available media outlets, this forum included!

Mischa
20-08-2009, 11:11 PM
This issue definitely matters and it should be a subject of discussion in all available media outlets, this forum included!

Agreed

Ninja
20-08-2009, 11:12 PM
This issue definitely matters and it should be a subject of discussion in all available media outlets, this forum included!
It only matters if people are dumb enough to vote him in;)

Mischa
20-08-2009, 11:13 PM
hang on....
He has done more to promote chess than anyone else in Victoria

Trahald
21-08-2009, 02:58 AM
hang on....
He has done more to promote chess than anyone else in Victoria

Exactly, I might not agree with all of his proposals, but it seems to me his professionalism and vision is unmatched by the current administration. I cannot imagine CV being any less relevant than it is now.

I am dumb enough to vote him in.

ER
22-08-2009, 03:42 AM
Well, to be honest it hasn't really set the world on fire (In Victoria at least).
In a short survey last night (Fri) at the Box Hill Chess Club most of the people I spoke to knew nothing about it!
I will actually talk to people at the MCC to see if they know and what they think about it too.
In the analysis room I had a short but meaningful discussion with a person whose knowledge in Victorian Chess is second to none.
That person is the only one who actually understands thoroughly Mr Cordover's plan. Who that person is and what we discussed is irrelevant for the time being.
What is important, as Boris and I have stated above, Mr Cordover must deliver his messages in as many media outlets as possible, so they can generate discussion and ideas.
BTW I just had a look in the excellent Blogs of
Amiel's "The Closet Grandmaster"
http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/
and Shaun's "Chessexpress"
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/
there is nothing there either!

ER
22-08-2009, 04:28 AM
Having said all the above, I would also like to state the following for David Cordover:
This is Elliott Renzies from SBS. I have interviewed you twice in the past so please excuse my dropping the "Mr Cordover" intro.
This is from a person who finds it difficult to be absolutely objective and impartial to you and your efforts for Chess and in particular Chess for Children in Victoria.
I find it hard since I have witnessed with my own eyes your tremendous success with an Ethnic Community Organisation, in regards to attracting hundreds of their member's children to participate in their annual Chess competition.
I also find it hard to be objective since I also have a very vivid memory of the answer I was given by the President of the same organisation when I asked him if they were planning to bring over some GMs from their country of origin to give simultaneous exhibitions and lectures here. "Don't ask me" he said, "Ask Mr Cordover, ... whatever he says we' ll do"!
Having said all these, I would like to welcome you to this Forum and to encourage you to answer some of the questions posed to you by members of this as from the other Forum!

ER
22-08-2009, 04:31 AM
My question to you:
Do you have a team of colleagues who would nominate for positions in your committee, or is it just yourself seeking to be elected in the position of the president?

WhiteElephant
22-08-2009, 02:17 PM
Over there Thomas Feng has made one of the most intelligent posts to date on this topic. Very good point. :clap:

ChessGuru
22-08-2009, 04:26 PM
Do you have a team of colleagues who would nominate for positions in your committee, or is it just yourself seeking to be elected in the position of the president?

Thanks Elliott for your posts. You are correct in saying that ideas re CV need to be widely discussed and distributed. I have prepared a letter which clubs will receive next week inviting discussion and officially announcing my intentions. Hopefully after that I might be permitted by David Flude/CV to put something on the CV email bulletin.

A lot of my ideas are posted on my blog (http://www.cordover.com.au).

I will encourage clubs who want to discuss these ideas to put aside an evening to do so and I will attend in person to be involved; answering (and asking) questions.

I thought it best to allow a week or two for the 'shock' to wear off in case some people had a 'knee-jerk' reaction.

At this stage I am not announcing my preferred co-committee members; but calling for volunteers from the community. As I've said in other places I think it will be easier to find people once we have a Vision, a Plan and clear roles for people to play.

I hope to see a few new (and probably a few old) faces wanting to be involved in CV in this next year or two....it is appealing to be part of something exciting, energetic and ultimately successful.

The only preference I'd voice is that members of CV exec should NOT be on any Club Committee. And to be prepared to work hard, fast and implement change, a lot of change! :)

Bill Gletsos
22-08-2009, 05:23 PM
The only preference I'd voice is that members of CV exec should NOT be on any Club Committee.But clearly have no problem with you having a clear business interest being on the CV exec. :hmm: :wall: :whistle:

ChessGuru
22-08-2009, 07:44 PM
But clearly have no problem with you having a clear business interest being on the CV exec. :hmm: :wall: :whistle:

Perhaps you have made an assumption about WHY I would recommend club-committee isn't also on CV executive. Not so much about conflict of interest and more about FOCUS.

Time and energy is LIMITED, and with volunteers even more precious. I would rather NOT take the 'easy way out' by filling a committee with people who are already busy and committed at their CLUB. I think they SHOULD be focused on their club as their Primary Concern.

This is also a major ACF problem; now you have someone who is a club official, state official AND ACF official....really, how much time will they have for the ACF? Their associations to Club and State are always stronger (because they are more direct) and so that is naturally their first priority...

With regards your implied 'conflict of interest' with my business v. Chess Victoria I'd like to answer that too:

It boils down to my belief that the PRIMARY CUSTOMERS of Chess Victoria are players in the 1600-2000 range....of whom there are 510 in Australia.

If my nomination is a stealth-marketing approach at a commercial outcome with total 510 potential customers Australia wide....well, I don't think anyone could imagine it would be worthwhile.

Including secondary customers (players 1200-2400) still gives Chess Victoria a vastly different Customer to Chess Kids. Chess Kids vision, plan and business is all based around kids and players in the rating range 0-800 (the Elite program takes them to 1200).

This is why I believe there is a natural separation and I can nominate with confidence.

If you take the time to understand the Player Pyramid (http://cordover.com.au/chess-in-australia/) then you will understand that each organisation MUST form partnerships and alliances. Chess Victoria with Clubs and Clubs with Coaches/Businesses. As such there is inherent separation between CK and CV.

I strongly advocate for CLUBS to form mutually beneficial partnerships with coaches. We can see this works from clubs such as Croydon (NY Wong), Box Hill (Johansen and others), Ranges (Wayne Guy), Hobson's Bay (Peter Caissa)... it works well for both the club and the coach.

I will certainly promote Chess Kids as a potential partner to every CLUB in Victoria...I think as the largest chess business in Australia we have a lot to offer, and hopefully a lot to gain, from club partnerships. But it will be up to the clubs who they choose....and as such I would not want to run for Club President (because there would be an overlap of customers).

It is true. I have a vested commercial interest in the success of chess in this country.

The better chess does the better my business will perform....does that mean you want chess to take a dive?

1. Business I'm sure will benefit by having a strong network of CLUBS. Having a strong CV will help clubs thrive (and help more clubs grow). Ultimately Chess will benefit and all Chess Coaches/Business will improve. At the moment my business happens to be the most successful - but if the pie is getting larger then everyone gets more pie.

2. The question begs... Wouldn't you rather that Chess Victoria is being led by someone with a strong vested interest in the outcomes and success of the organisation? Surely this is better than by someone to whom the success or otherwise of chess makes little or no difference?

WhiteElephant
22-08-2009, 08:14 PM
David, I am glad that you are answering quieries here and thank you for your offer above.

I have a question regarding Interschool.

I have not seen any mention of Interschool on your campaign website, announcements and lengthy posts on forums.

CV is responsible for administering the official Victorian Interschool Championships, which feeds teams into the official Australian Interschool Championships, which determines the top Primary & Secondary schools in Australia.

Chess Kids runs a parallel Interschool Competition, culminating in something you call the 'National Finals'.

You have made no secret in the past of your intention to usurp the Victorian Interschool Competition (and likely, Australian). I am well aware that the Chess Kids Interschool Comp is a successful one so you don't have to quote figures...however, I am also well aware that you have been losing market share over the past 2 years as the official Victorian Interschool Competition has been thriving under the directorship of Leonid Sandler.

I would like to know how you plan to reconcile these 2 competitions and increase the prestige and scope of the official competition, as I assume would be the President's aim. I believe that in the past CV has approached you with an offer to merge your competition with the CV one and pay the same levy for running tournaments as other private operators such as myself currently do. Could you please confirm or deny this? And would you care to make any other comments regarding your aims for junior chess in Victoria since the vast majority of junior players do not fall within the 1600-2000 rating range, being your suggested 'customers' of CV.

Look forward to your reply.

Mischa
22-08-2009, 08:50 PM
heya george
I think merging is a great idea
Leonard is a wonderful leader as is David Cordover...thin what the two of them working together can achieve!!
I know Klyall has no love lost for David but if she were to come on board then it would be a hell of a team
and Geroge...why not you too then there is a group to ensure David does not bend the leadership to the dark side of the force
(what force?)

Bill Gletsos
22-08-2009, 09:53 PM
Perhaps you have made an assumption about WHY I would recommend club-committee isn't also on CV executive. Not so much about conflict of interest and more about FOCUS.

Time and energy is LIMITED, and with volunteers even more precious. I would rather NOT take the 'easy way out' by filling a committee with people who are already busy and committed at their CLUB. I think they SHOULD be focused on their club as their Primary Concern.

This is also a major ACF problem; now you have someone who is a club official, state official AND ACF official....really, how much time will they have for the ACF? Their associations to Club and State are always stronger (because they are more direct) and so that is naturally their first priority...I disagree and I believe I can speak with actual experience on this matter.

With regards your implied 'conflict of interest' with my business v. Chess Victoria I'd like to answer that too:

It boils down to my belief that the PRIMARY CUSTOMERS of Chess Victoria are players in the 1600-2000 range....of whom there are 510 in Australia.You can say that but it does not make it so.

If my nomination is a stealth-marketing approach at a commercial outcome with total 510 potential customers Australia wide....well, I don't think anyone could imagine it would be worthwhile.

Including secondary customers (players 1200-2400) still gives Chess Victoria a vastly different Customer to Chess Kids. Chess Kids vision, plan and business is all based around kids and players in the rating range 0-800 (the Elite program takes them to 1200).

This is why I believe there is a natural separation and I can nominate with confidence.But that separation is only because you deliberate choose to limit CV's base.

If CV's base was 0-2400 then at the bottom end they would clearly compete with your business interests.

If you take the time to understand the Player Pyramid (http://cordover.com.au/chess-in-australia/) then you will understand that each organisation MUST form partnerships and alliances. Chess Victoria with Clubs and Clubs with Coaches/Businesses. As such there is inherent separation between CK and CV.Only because you are deliberately attempting to create that separation by limiting CV's base.

I strongly advocate for CLUBS to form mutually beneficial partnerships with coaches. We can see this works from clubs such as Croydon (NY Wong), Box Hill (Johansen and others), Ranges (Wayne Guy), Hobson's Bay (Peter Caissa)... it works well for both the club and the coach.

I will certainly promote Chess Kids as a potential partner to every CLUB in Victoria...I think as the largest chess business in Australia we have a lot to offer, and hopefully a lot to gain, from club partnerships. But it will be up to the clubs who they choose....and as such I would not want to run for Club President (because there would be an overlap of customers).Not only that it would limit your business potential by being a Club President.

It is true. I have a vested commercial interest in the success of chess in this country.

The better chess does the better my business will perform....does that mean you want chess to take a dive?

1. Business I'm sure will benefit by having a strong network of CLUBS. Having a strong CV will help clubs thrive (and help more clubs grow). Ultimately Chess will benefit and all Chess Coaches/Business will improve. At the moment my business happens to be the most successful - but if the pie is getting larger then everyone gets more pie.

2. The question begs... Wouldn't you rather that Chess Victoria is being led by someone with a strong vested interest in the outcomes and success of the organisation? Surely this is better than by someone to whom the success or otherwise of chess makes little or no difference?What I would like is for you to refrain from doing things that are not what they seem.

e.g your Chess Association of Australia (http://www.chess.asn.au/) web site that to the uninitiated could be mistaken as the official website for the National Chess body in Australia.

e.g. your reference to your interschool events as the National Interschool championship which again for the uninitiated could be mistaken as the offiical National school teams championship.

ChessGuru
22-08-2009, 10:03 PM
CV is responsible for administering the official Victorian Interschool Championships, which feeds teams into the official Australian Interschool Championships, which determines the top Primary & Secondary schools in Australia.

Sorry to be pedantic; but terminology is important in this delicate area. CV/ACF run events called "Australian (Victorian) Schools Teams Chess Championships". Chess Kids runs events called the "National (Victorian) Interschool Chess Championships". I wouldn't like you to mis-communicate and have Jessop accuse you of 'passing off'. :)

Everyone is well aware of the Chess Kids events and I'm sure it is no secret that Chess Kids intends to continue to grow/expand them in the future. I am aware that CV/ACF doesn't enjoy having competition to their competition ;) and if for that reason chess players prefer me not to be involved in Chess Victoria I will accept that.


I am also well aware that you have been losing market share over the past 2 years as the official Victorian Interschool Competition has been thriving under the directorship of Leonid Sandler.

You are correct - over the past 2 years CV have increased the number of school-team events they approved from virtually nothing in 2007 (pre-Sandler directorship) to:
2008 17 events - Sander/9 events; Chess Ideas/6 events; Other/2 events
2009 23 events - Sander/10 events; Chess Ideas/9 events; Other/4 events

I am not sure how proudly CV should be shouting to their members about a 'thriving interschool series'. It's like being excited to have made money in the stock market during a boom... after all, the events are run by Businesses who take all the profits; or does CV assist in the promotion/growth/development of these events for the benefit of Businesses involved?

As a club or member of CV I'd be asking: Have club memberships increased by the same rate? How many new clubs have been created in the past 2 years? How much time/money have you spent on Clubs v. School-teams? Have the # of rated players increased? # of rated games? Have # of weekenders increased? Thought about a Victorian GP series? How's interclub been going? How many new 2000+ players are there? # of juniors becoming members of a club? Got a junior training squad? etc... :hmm:

This is a good example of lack of focus. It is easy to say "yes, let's do that" and very hard to say "no, actually we need to focus on our primary objective" - especially if the objective is harder or delivers less instant gratification (or is unknown/not-stated).


I believe that in the past CV has approached you with an offer to merge your competition with the CV one and pay the same levy for running tournaments as other private operators such as myself currently do. Could you please confirm or deny this?

Due to the fact that we run 150+ events per year CV if fact very kindly offered Chess Kids inclusion at a reduced levy! We declined their offer because we could not be assured consistency through all CV approved events. Some events have 6 rounds, some 7, some start 10am, some 9am, some entries by fax, some by email, some get this medal, some that, some results on a website, some not... it's a hodge-podge that Chess Kids prefers not to be associated with.


I would like to know how you plan to reconcile these 2 competitions and increase the prestige and scope of the official competition, as I assume would be the President's aim.

Firstly I'd like to bring CV school-team events back in line with the ACF event...over the past 2 years CV has altered the structure AWAY from the ACF structure (to which we are feeding into :confused:) into a more commercially minded structure. Players pay MORE to play in a CV approved-event (not-for-profit) than in a Chess Kids event (evil capitalists), and I hear CV is even charging qualified teams an ENTRY FEE of $75 per team to the Victorian Schools Teams Championships...

If we are part of a bigger-picture (ACF feeder) then why are the events so different?

I think it would be a misuse of CV time to be doing anything other than focusing on improving CLUB and STATE level chess so that the 1000's of kids who are playing in school-teams will have somewhere to continue TO in the years to come.

With precious little time and minimal resources I believe CV needs to FOCUS on their area of responsibility and not prioritise unrated kids over the clubs and the (1600-2000 and 1200-2400) rated chess players of Victoria.


And would you care to make any other comments regarding your aims for junior chess in Victoria since the vast majority of junior players do not fall within the 1600-2000 rating range, being your suggested 'customers' of CV.

Since 2002 the number of kids playing school-events (ratings 0-1200) has risen from 800 to 8000! Yet, during the same time the number of club members/active ACF rated players has declined! There is no shortage of players reaching 1200 strength, our failure lies somewhere in the transition from 1200 to 2000.

Focusing on creating 80,000 players rated 0-1200 won't make an ounce of difference to Chess Victoria until we can IMPROVE our CLUB and STATE level chess... (and btw, if CV does NOTHING for junior chess, there will still be 80,000 juniors reaching 1200 strength in 10 years) so let's do something that will make a difference!

It is my objective to ensure a strong network of clubs and tournaments which welcome juniors and assist them to progress from 1200 through to 2400. In 10 years CV will then see a 10x increase in membership, clubs and players.

Anything below 1200 is not CV's responsibility.

For kids rated over 1200 see my blog (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/chess-kids-elite/) post.

Basil
22-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Sorry to be pedantic; but terminology is important in this delicate area. CV/ACF run events called "Australian (Victorian) Schools Teams Chess Championships". Chess Kids runs events called the "National (Victorian) Interschool Chess Championships". I wouldn't like you to mis-communicate and have Jessop accuse you of 'passing off'. :)
David, I don't know you and I do have time for your direct membership proposal (on its face).

Although this is a Victorian issue and I have no desire to be publicly involved with one party or other, I will say that (from both a businessman's and chess administrator's (past president CAQ) POV), your past practices of naming of invents is wrong, rude, antagonistic and a multitude of other things. Had your antics happened in Queensland, I would have (after having secured the support of my colleagues on council) taken a far more aggressive stance against your practices than my more sophisticated and possibly gentile southern counterparts.

For you to propose to be the most senior CV official involved with the "official official" events whilst at the same time being a commercial operator involved with the very similarly-named events (to give an impression of "official") ... well that's simply stupefying that you have the gall to propose that you fill both those roles.

Having your finger in - no, being at the helm - of both competing pies is rank and obtuse in the extreme in my opinion. And for that, and only that, I could never support your candidacy. Without that issue around your neck, I would wish you as well as the next man - pending no further 'unfortunate' discoveries.

Howard Duggan

ChessGuru
22-08-2009, 10:30 PM
But it is all as it seems...


e.g your Chess Association of Australia (http://www.chess.asn.au/) web site that to the uninitiated could be mistaken as the official website for the National Chess body in Australia.

Surely no genuine National Body would have such primitive website! :lol:

Actually, that Association was created some years ago with the intention of competing with and eventually replacing the ACF. It is now water under the bridge -- the association is defunct. Project abandoned (for now). ;)


e.g. your reference to your interschool events as the National Interschool championship which again for the uninitiated could be mistaken as the offiical National school teams championship.

We can argue all night about the word official...it is what it is. I make no apology for Chess Kids running a National Interschool Chess Championships. I believe it does a lot for chess in this country and it will continue.

If the majority of chess players feel that the ACF (and by association states/clubs) is somehow divinely protected from competition then so be it - I am a blasphemer and will respect your views and choices.

If, on the other hand, they see that multiple other sports (darts, wrestling, rugby, cricket, world chess championships, etc) businesses, government and even religion all face competition then they might just accept my offer (even encourage me) to help Chess Victoria become a flagship organisation (and less susceptible to competitors).

This is an issue of belief and not an issue of substance for my CV candidacy. No amount of debate will sway people's view one way or another. If you wish to continue, please start another thread. I'd prefer, if you don't mind, to have some genuine discussion about the future of Chess in Victoria (after all then the discussion might still be useful when I'm NOT elected President).

ChessGuru
22-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Having your finger in - no, being at the helm - of both competing pies is simply rank in my opinion. And for that, and only that, I could never support your candidacy. Without that issue around your neck, I would wish you as well as the next man - pending no further 'unfortunate' discoveries.
Dear Howard,

Thank you for comments. I respect the way that you, Bill and many others feel. It is a decision I have taken with my eyes open and I accept the criticism and consequences. As I have said, this is an issue of belief and I would not dream of trying to change your stance.

Ultimately we are working towards the same goal and for that I cannot help but feel gratitude to every administrator, official and player in Australia.

If my candidacy is unsuccessful, but during the campaign some useful ideas are generated and the next CV committee is able to improve chess in Victoria then I am satisfied. I am also prepared to assist the new CV committee with planning and strategic thinking, so this isn't a ME or THEM campaign...

I hope to expand the thinking of chess administrators by getting them to think in ways that have not been done before.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about the Direct Membership (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/direct-membership/) idea?

Yours in chess,
David

Bill Gletsos
22-08-2009, 10:50 PM
But it is all as it seems...

Surely no genuine National Body would have such primitive website! :lol:

Actually, that Association was created some years ago with the intention of competing with and eventually replacing the ACF. It is now water under the bridge -- the association is defunct. Project abandoned (for now). ;)You were advertising on that website just last year for Accredited Professional Chess Coach courses. As such the website isnt that defunct.

We can argue all night about the word official...it is what it is. I make no apology for Chess Kids running a National Interschool Chess Championships. I believe it does a lot for chess in this country and it will continue.Well it certainly does a lot for your business to be behave in such a manner.
Expecting you to apologise would be expecting too much.

If the majority of chess players feel that the ACF (and by association states/clubs) is somehow divinely protected from competition then so be it - I am a blasphemer and will respect your views and choices.No it is simply you implying your interschool events to be something they are not.

If, on the other hand, they see that multiple other sports (darts, wrestling, rugby, cricket, world chess championships, etc) businesses, government and even religion all face competition then they might just accept my offer (even encourage me) to help Chess Victoria become a flagship organisation (and less susceptible to competitors).

This is an issue of belief and not an issue of substance for my CV candidacy.Of course it is an issue of substance.

No amount of debate will sway people's view one way or another.It may not sway your view but you do not get to speak for others.
As such you cannot claim it will not sway peoples views.

If you wish to continue, please start another thread. I'd prefer, if you don't mind, to have some genuine discussion about the future of Chess in Victoria (after all then the discussion might still be useful when I'm NOT elected President).I believe it should be in this thread.
After all, surely your past, current and ongoing actions is important to the future of Chess in Victoria.

Mischa
22-08-2009, 11:03 PM
just in a little quiet voice...
Adoring Leonard
just wanting to ask what CV can do for the clubs
for the higher end kids
I had a valid objection big time against a club once and CV were not interested at all...at all
I think David has a point here, CV has an obligation to SERVE the clubs
on another note many of us are kinda sick of all CV tounraments being held at Canterbury/box hill/Cv

Bill Gletsos
22-08-2009, 11:20 PM
just in a little quiet voice...
Adoring Leonard
just wanting to ask what CV can do for the clubs
for the higher end kids
I had a valid objection big time against a club once and CV were not interested at all...at all
I think David has a point here, CV has an obligation to SERVE the clubs
on another note many of us are kinda sick of all CV tounraments being held at Canterbury/box hill/CvYou need to remember that it was agreed at the CV AGM in 2006 by the clubs to use Box Hill as the base for Chess Victoria.

As such it makes sense for CV official events such as the Vic Open, Vic Juniors to be held at the CV venue.

Carl Gorka
22-08-2009, 11:29 PM
As such it makes sense for CV official events such as the Vic Open, Vic Juniors to be held at the CV venue.

This would make perfect sense if the events were intended to be held at CV HQ. However, the events are put out to tender at the start of the year, so the events are not held at CV HQ, but rather BHCC/CJCC, as that is the club which has bid for them and been accepted.

But I'd rather not get into a debate on the current bidding system....

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 01:20 AM
This would make perfect sense if the events were intended to be held at CV HQ. However, the events are put out to tender at the start of the year, so the events are not held at CV HQ, but rather BHCC/CJCC, as that is the club which has bid for them and been accepted.

But I'd rather not get into a debate on the current bidding system....I was under the belief based on the 2007 AGM (held Feb 2008) minutes that CV were paying $4,000 in rent and holding all CV events at Box Hill/Canterbury.

If this changed and they are putting those events out to bid then is CV still paying rent for the Box Hill/Canterbury premises and if so why?

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 11:09 AM
Well it certainly does a lot for your business to be behave in such a manner.

Yes, my business has a FOCUS on players between 0 and 1200 rating. Because Chess Kids remains focused, has a clear objective and a plan we are able to achieve certain success.

I just wonder what BENEFIT Chess Victoria receives from approving school-team events? Why do they do it? How does it fit in with the Big Plan?

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 11:11 AM
I've not heard much about the Direct Membership proposal.... does that mean people quietly approve?

Carl Gorka
23-08-2009, 12:31 PM
I was under the belief based on the 2007 AGM (held Feb 2008) minutes that CV were paying $4,000 in rent and holding all CV events at Box Hill/Canterbury.

If this changed and they are putting those events out to bid then is CV still paying rent for the Box Hill/Canterbury premises and if so why?

I am a mere VP of the MCC, not privy to the decisions made in CV. All I know is that the MCC, as well as other clubs in Victoria were invited to bid for events including the Vic Open and Vic Juniors at the start of the year. BHCC were the only club, to my knowledge, that bid and their tenders were naturally accepted.

I am in no position to comment on the rental agreement between CV and BHCC.

Saragossa
23-08-2009, 06:08 PM
My opinion is that the numbers participating in Chesskids gets inflated (In a sense). What I mean is that alot of kids come to the regional qualifier, lose, go back to school and participate in zero chess activity until the next chess kids tournament.

If we could get chess happening on a regular basis. I've had this going in our school for the last two years but 90% of the kids that go to a qualifier don't participate in the club. We are trying to expand atm to accomodate for more peoples needs but this is slow.

My thinking is: Schools would let kids have a day off if it were for a "Chesskids interschool competition" to go and play chess. But instead of it being for the nationals just have it as a local regular competition, like football etc.

Equiptment is always a problem. But perhaps a group fund could be set up by all the schools wishing to participate and students pay an annual fee to take part in the regular tournaments. You could also have a prize system to encourage them to play more, for improvement etc. All ideas hope this helps.

From Lawrence Bretag

Garvinator
23-08-2009, 06:22 PM
My opinion is that the numbers participating in Chesskids gets inflated (In a sense). What I mean is that alot of kids come to the regional qualifier, lose, go back to school and participate in zero chess activity until the next chess kids tournament.

If we could get chess happening on a regular basis. I've had this going in our school for the last two years but 90% of the kids that go to a qualifier don't participate in the club. We are trying to expand atm to accomodate for more peoples needs but this is slow.

My thinking is: Schools would let kids have a day off if it were for a "Chesskids interschool competition" to go and play chess. But instead of it being for the nationals just have it as a local regular competition, like football etc.

Equiptment is always a problem. But perhaps a group fund could be set up by all the schools wishing to participate and students pay an annual fee to take part in the regular tournaments. You could also have a prize system to encourage them to play more, for improvement etc. All ideas hope this helps.

From Lawrence Bretag
This is common across most of the world. For most of the children, going to the organised chess activity is just an excuse to get out of school and that is the main, or only reason for attending.

The 'trick' so to speak, is to find the students who want to play more than this and encourage them and give them as much information as they can handle on where further chess activities are.

MichaelBaron
23-08-2009, 06:55 PM
$50 for everyone wanting to play competitively....if someone wants to play 1-2 rated events isn't it too expensive? and what service will CV provide in exchange? Just collect money and say thank you. :lol:

CameronD
23-08-2009, 08:16 PM
$50 for everyone wanting to play competitively....if someone wants to play 1-2 rated events isn't it too expensive? and what service will CV provide in exchange? Just collect money and say thank you. :lol:

I dont know what the scene is like down there. But would some clubs leave the CV and stop rating their events as their members wouldnt be willing to pay the fee.

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 08:19 PM
I dont know what the scene is like down there. But would some clubs leave the CV and stop rating their events as their members wouldnt be willing to pay the fee.

Don't know - maybe CV could stop paying ACF fees?

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 08:20 PM
$50 for everyone wanting to play competitively....if someone wants to play 1-2 rated events isn't it too expensive? and what service will CV provide in exchange? Just collect money and say thank you. :lol:

Good question. You tell me... as a chess player what do you need? What do you want?

Mischa
23-08-2009, 08:59 PM
um...not sure, but what do the the fees paid to the ACF benefit the members?

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 09:25 PM
um...not sure, but what do the the fees paid to the ACF benefit the members?

I don't have all the answers, I just think that chess administrative bodies should start thinking/behaving like they have customers...that they should actually provide a service to their members. Value for money.

I think historically they feel that they are a 'government' and DUE the money, that fees are their RIGHT and not a privileged which has to be worked for and comes with certain responsibilities. They don't need to do anything for it. After all the ACF doesn't even charge players -- they are very much like the ATO and ask the state associations to collect the fees and just pay one nice big lump sum to the ACF.

States are pretty much the same.... and worse still players too have been conditioned so much that when you ask "What can CV do for you?" either to a club or an individual player, most of them can't find an answer. And sometimes the answer is along the lines of "if they are never seen or heard that is doing a good job!".

See my blog post (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/an-example-of-what-cv-could-be-doing/) for an example.

CameronD
23-08-2009, 09:40 PM
I dont know what the scene is like down there. But would some clubs leave the CV and stop rating their events as their members wouldnt be willing to pay the fee.

Actually, just read the blog.

Direct Membership of CV is compulsory for any player in Victoria who is a member of a club or wants to play a rated tournament.

so just being a social or casual player requires CV membership, or a non-playing club member.

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 09:46 PM
um...not sure, but what do the the fees paid to the ACF benefit the members?It is simple.

If a club/state association does not pay ACF admin fees then you do not get your event rated.
If a club/state association does do not pay to have its event ACF rated and it is planned to be a FIDE rated event then it will not be ACF approved for FIDE rating and hence will not be FIDE rated.
If a club/state association does not get its event rated then its disadvantage its members.

Note the ACF admin fee for normal rated events is 30 cents per player per game. (prior to 2009 it was 25 cents per player per game.)

My understanding is that CV has been charging the tournament organiser $5 per player per tournament as a state rating fee from which it pays the ACF admin fee. This means for the average 7 round event CV gets $2.90 and the ACF $2.10. When the fee was just 25 cents per player per game then CV was getting $3.25 and the ACF $1.75.

As such the CV rating fee structure benefits CV far more than it does the ACF.

Contrast this with NSW where there is no state rating fee.
For NSWCA run events (e.g. NSW Open, NSW State Championship, Ryde Eastwood Open, Interclub Grade Matches, etc.) then all players must be NSWCA members ($30 fee, $20 concession fee, $10 country fee). The ACF admin fee is paid for directly from entry fees. So from say a $60 entry fee $2.10 goes to the ACF.
For non NSWCA events ruin in NSW (e.g. club championships, club open events or club run weekenders) then players must be either NSWCA members or pay a $10 registered player annual fee. The organiser of the event then pays the ACF admin fee and again for a 7 round event it is just $2.10 per player.

Mischa
23-08-2009, 10:01 PM
what if you wanted an event to be FIDE rated only?

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 10:06 PM
what if you wanted an event to be FIDE rated only?You cannot have it only FIDE rated.
It is an ACF requirement that all Australian FIDE rated events be ACF rated.

ChessGuru
23-08-2009, 10:14 PM
You cannot have it only FIDE rated.
It is an ACF requirement that all Australian FIDE rated events be ACF rated.

So what's the ACF's long-term plan for when someone comes along and tells everyone:

Hey, I've got a great new rating system:

Events rated immediately (no more waiting 3 months)
Easy to understand formula, transparent system!
Fully automated, no more ratings officers
Easy to find ratings (on a website), plus PLAYER STATISTICS
Full player history available online
Only costs 10c per player/game!
Don't lose your rating - all ratings carried over from previous ACF system


:lol:

MichaelBaron
23-08-2009, 10:24 PM
Good question. You tell me... as a chess player what do you need? What do you want?

Dave, thank you for asking this.

What i would like to see in future is:
a) greater transparency what happens with the fees collected from clubs/players. Right now i have a feeling that: CV is subsidizing Box Hill chess club and ACF while chess players are subsidizing CV
b) CV working for the clubs - not clubs working for CV
c) Transparent bidding processes for all state level events.
d) A clear agenda for how to develop chess in Victoria further.
e) What has to be done right now to change things for the better and what can we do to help :)

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 10:34 PM
So what's the ACF's long-term plan for when someone comes along and tells everyone:

Hey, I've got a great new rating system:

Events rated immediately (no more waiting 3 months)
Easy to understand formula, transparent system!
Fully automated, no more ratings officers
Easy to find ratings (on a website), plus PLAYER STATISTICS
Full player history available online
Only costs 10c per player/game!
Don't lose your rating - all ratings carried over from previous ACF system


:lol:Firstly those ratings wont be official ACF ratings.

Also it is easy to make claims when you have no real clue about ratings.

e.g. 1) immediately rating events makes it much harder to give even indicative initial ratings with any degree of accuracy.
2) easy to understand formulas are far worse at predictive accuracy especially with ratings going from 100-2600+

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 11:24 PM
It is simple.

If a club/state association does not pay ACF admin fees then you do not get your event rated.
If a club/state association does do not pay to have its event ACF rated and it is planned to be a FIDE rated event then it will not be ACF approved for FIDE rating and hence will not be FIDE rated.
If a club/state association does not get its event rated then its disadvantage its members.

Note the ACF admin fee for normal rated events is 30 cents per player per game. (prior to 2009 it was 25 cents per player per game.)

My understanding is that CV has been charging the tournament organiser $5 per player per tournament as a state rating fee from which it pays the ACF admin fee. This means for the average 7 round event CV gets $2.90 and the ACF $2.10. When the fee was just 25 cents per player per game then CV was getting $3.25 and the ACF $1.75.

As such the CV rating fee structure benefits CV far more than it does the ACF.

Contrast this with NSW where there is no state rating fee.
For NSWCA run events (e.g. NSW Open, NSW State Championship, Ryde Eastwood Open, Interclub Grade Matches, etc.) then all players must be NSWCA members ($30 fee, $20 concession fee, $10 country fee). The ACF admin fee is paid for directly from entry fees. So from say a $60 entry fee $2.10 goes to the ACF.
For non NSWCA events ruin in NSW (e.g. club championships, club open events or club run weekenders) then players must be either NSWCA members or pay a $10 registered player annual fee. The organiser of the event then pays the ACF admin fee and again for a 7 round event it is just $2.10 per player.I see where elsewhere it is stated the CV fee has been $4 per player per tournament since 2007.

So prior to 2007 even for 9 round normal events CV was getting $2.75 and the ACF $2.25.

During 2007 and 2008 CV were collecting for 7 round normal events $2.25 with the ACF getting $1.75 and in 2009 CV getting $1.90 and the ACF $2.10.

Mischa
23-08-2009, 11:38 PM
is this FIDE Rules?

Bill Gletsos
23-08-2009, 11:48 PM
is this FIDE Rules?FIDE only accept events for rating submitted by National Federations.
As such if the ACF refuses to FIDE rate an Australian event it will not be FIDE rated.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2009, 01:42 AM
Can someone provide me with a reasonably exhaustive list of CV income streams? We know about the per-player-per-rated-tournament charge and there has also been mention of some taking from interschools; how else does CV derive income from players or clubs?

Just interested to compare with TCA. TCA does not charge anything per player above the rating fee, nor do we have any direct charge for membership, but we levy each weekender held at a rate of 10% of entry monies after expenses. So it varies by tournament, but in practice something like $3 of an "average" entry fee goes to the state association. One of the main outlays from that money is on blanket insurance for all the weekenders.

MichaelBaron
24-08-2009, 10:25 AM
Kevin, I am very curious whether in Tasmania and other states there is greater transparency with how the money collected is being used. Where does it go other than for getting the events rated. In my club, nobody seems to be aware of what is happening with the money collected in Victoria. This is our money so i think we would like to know. What about other states?

I realize that in Tassie - the chess scene is much smaller than in VIC so blanket insurance for the weekenders could very well be the main source of expenditure. In this case, it is certainly money well spent. Money taken from chess community..goes back to the chess community.

Ian Rout
24-08-2009, 12:00 PM
So what's the ACF's long-term plan for when someone comes along and tells everyone:

Hey, I've got a great new rating system:

Events rated immediately (no more waiting 3 months)
Easy to understand formula, transparent system!
Fully automated, no more ratings officers
Easy to find ratings (on a website), plus PLAYER STATISTICS
Full player history available online
Only costs 10c per player/game!
Don't lose your rating - all ratings carried over from previous ACF system


:lol:Is this someone a commercial operator? Considering the cost of developing, maintaining and operating this system for a return of $7,200 a year (approx 24K normal games + 12K rapid games x $0.20) then they are likely to be running a reasonably healthy loss for providing us with this service, so I think they should be encouraged.

Vlad
24-08-2009, 12:05 PM
Is this someone a commercial operator? Considering the cost of developing, maintaining and operating this system for a return of $7,200 a year (approx 24K normal games + 12K rapid games x $0.20) then they are likely to be running a reasonably healthy loss for providing us with this service, so I think they should be encouraged.

True but only under assumption that they do a proper job. How would you make sure that they just do not pick up almost random numbers? ;)

Ian Rout
24-08-2009, 02:32 PM
True but only under assumption that they do a proper job. How would you make sure that they just do not pick up almost random numbers? ;)
Yes, matching the performance to the promise is where our commercial enterprise (let's call it Brand X) may have problems.

Chess servers capture data as games are played but that won't work for OTB events, and volunteer labour for a commercial system is unlikely to be forthcoming. Even with the Swiss perfect files the rating system is quite manually intensive in checking for data errors and registering new players. So the bit where Brand X eliminates ratings officers (and the associated costs) is easier said than done.

In any event how is data to get into the system - can anybody just log in and enter that they won a match 9.5:0.5 against David Smerdon? If you have a network of authorised enterers or checkers that sounds like ratings officers under another name.

In any case though the "cost" of the ACF rating system is illusory. It costs hardly anything in cash terms. ACF and State bodies, like governing bodies of any sport or activity, need to raise funds from members to perform their functions and ACF does so in the from a rating fee, = a membership fee proportional to rated games played, rather than a flat membership fee. If Brand X ran the ratings ACF would need to raise funds from members in some other way.

Vlad
24-08-2009, 03:06 PM
There is a very famous character in Russian politics, Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky). At some point during his election compaign in Russia he was promising a husband for every unmarried woman who was willing to marry. Surprisingly, a significant proportion of people believed him.;)

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Kevin, I am very curious whether in Tasmania and other states there is greater transparency with how the money collected is being used. Where does it go other than for getting the events rated.

As far as ratings go we (the TCA) bill the clubs and tournaments for rating their events and do not add any extra per-game charge.

Our income sources apart from that are tournament levies for open-aged chess, and profits from junior chess events. The income from tournament levies is spent mainly on insurance and covering the annual ACF fee. There is not that much left over after these things.

The income from junior chess is also spent on insurance and covering the ACF fee, but there is considerably more left over even once trophy costs etc are covered. At the moment we spend what is left over on junior development, eg through major coaching camps.

Junior and senior chess have separate income and expenditure streams in Tasmania except for sharing some costs like insurance. Basically junior chess pays for junior chess and senior chess pays for senior chess.

ElevatorEscapee
24-08-2009, 06:18 PM
I dont know what the scene is like down there. But would some clubs leave the CV and stop rating their events as their members wouldnt be willing to pay the fee.

Hi Cameron, my Club (Bendigo) stopped sending events in for rating when the $5 per player per tournament fee kicked in. However, we have still remained a CV affiliated club.

The main reason we stopped rating events is that we have a very small turnover, (less than $2,000, most of which goes to rent), and the majority of the members didn't particularly care about ratings. This made our preference to be more likely to put say, $60, toward purchasing equipment rather than to rating a tournament with a dozen players. Whilst I agree with Bill that it is a disadvantage to the Club that our tournaments do not get rated, it is perhaps less of a disadvantage than running short of equipment. :)


My understanding is that CV has been charging the tournament organiser $5 per player per tournament as a state rating fee from which it pays the ACF admin fee.

I believe it dropped to $4 per player per tournament a couple of years ago, however I can't find the minutes of that particular CV AGM. :)


Can someone provide me with a reasonably exhaustive list of CV income streams? We know about the per-player-per-rated-tournament charge and there has also been mention of some taking from interschools; how else does CV derive income from players or clubs?

Kevin, as a club we pay a base affiliation fee (in our case, for the last couple of years it has only been $50 - I think this is lower than some of the Melbourne clubs as it is a discounted "Country" rate). We also pay a fee of $5per member, which we charge directly to the members as part of their annual fee. These fees have stayed pretty constant, at least back to 2003 where my current chequebook starts. :)

David, if you are reading this, would you be able to confirm which of the above mentioned fees would be replaced by your proposed $50 direct membership fee?

Thank you,

Nigel Barrow.
(Treasurer, Bendigo Chess Club)

Bill Gletsos
24-08-2009, 08:06 PM
I believe it dropped to $4 per player per tournament a couple of years ago, however I can't find the minutes of that particular CV AGM. :)Yes, I noted that in a subsequent post.

ER
24-08-2009, 08:15 PM
Hi Nigel,
I suggest you read everything published on this subject including David's blog! That includes contributions of other chatters as well!
How's winter up there mate? How's the new apartment going?
Are you coming down for the Melbourne Cup (Chess) tournament?
See you soon!

ChessGuru
24-08-2009, 09:19 PM
Is this someone a commercial operator? Considering the cost of developing, maintaining and operating this system for a return of $7,200 a year (approx 24K normal games + 12K rapid games x $0.20) then they are likely to be running a reasonably healthy loss for providing us with this service, so I think they should be encouraged.

Ian,

Wow, that's good to hear. :D

It's already done, ready to go whenever someone wants to make use of it.

Chess Kids ratings online (http://chesskids.com.au/ratings/).

It is on offer FREE to all junior tournaments in Victoria - - if any state/club wants to have it run their entire system then PM me and we can discuss details.

We are rating approximately 100,000 games per year through the system and I'm pretty sure we've solved almost all the problems including player input/matching etc.

The system is totally transparent so anyone can check their rating to make sure that it isn't making up random numbers.

ChessGuru
24-08-2009, 09:24 PM
David, if you are reading this, would you be able to confirm which of the above mentioned fees would be replaced by your proposed $50 direct membership fee?


Hi Nigel,

If you want your events rated let me know -- see previous post.

I've not got any idea how the CV financial system is working at this stage... so can't give you an answer.

I can tell you a couple of things though...

1. Chess Victoria should be providing VALUE FOR MONEY - so whatever is charged you are going to be happy to pay it. Whatever expectations you have, CV is going to be pushing to EXCEED them at every step of the way.

2. I believe that chess is undervalued in this country - read "too cheap". So my push is almost ALWAYS going to be to make things MORE EXPENSIVE (wow, now that's a campaign no-no!), now re-read point 1.

frankablanca
24-08-2009, 09:31 PM
2. I believe that chess is undervalued in this country - read "too cheap".

Agreed!

ChessGuru
24-08-2009, 09:40 PM
2. I believe that chess is undervalued in this country - read "too cheap".

Agreed!

:) Glad I'm not alone.

I just realised WHY....

Nobody likes to pay TAX -- no matter how much/little it is it is ALWAYS too much.

People are happy to SPEND money, just think how much you've spent this week!

If CV/ACF were treating their members as CUSTOMERS and not as constituents then they'd be working hard to give Value for money and could charge 10 or 100 times as much and still get happier customers.

Having said that CV does NEED income streams don't start in the chess players' pockets.

frankablanca
24-08-2009, 11:03 PM
:) Glad I'm not alone.

I just realised WHY....

Nobody likes to pay TAX -- no matter how much/little it is it is ALWAYS too much.

People are happy to SPEND money, just think how much you've spent this week!

If CV/ACF were treating their members as CUSTOMERS and not as constituents then they'd be working hard to give Value for money and could charge 10 or 100 times as much and still get happier customers.

Having said that CV does NEED income streams don't start in the chess players' pockets.

David just kickstarted a very interesting line of thinking. Not only ACF and CV, but I believe more importantly if all clubs and event organisers treat players more like valued customers, the perceived value of chess will increase dramatically. Take MCC for example, I would willingly pay more to participate at MCC now after the efforts of makeover of the place was done. On the other hand, if a venue is not tidy and pleasant, games not started on time, partrons have poor dress standard, etc. the perceived value will definitely drop.

ChessGuru
26-08-2009, 11:51 AM
My latest blog post (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/more-chess-clubs/).

queenant89
29-08-2009, 05:10 AM
Firstly I wish to congratulate David on his efforts to run for CV President. :clap: I believe his efforts in promoting chess in large parts of Australia, go often un noticed and critised often. His promotion of chess in areas which CV and other associations havent bothered or attempted are second to none. He has brought chess to many country community schools where the nearest actual chess club can be up to 100's of kilometres away or non exisitant, and encouraged more players to play chess. I havent seen any other active promotion in country victoria by any other chess related body/ association other than via the already estabished chess clubs and their annual weekenders , which to say is very few. I support the roles the estabished country clubs have done for chess in their communities and wider but it is a huge load of work.

Firstly i do have to ask, David what is your plans, proposals/ ideas for CV action in the country areas?? I do know that there is a Victorian Country Chess league which overseas the Victorian Country Championships, and your ideas for social chess into the local libraries, but on a more active sense what are your plans??? In introduction of some more high rate country tournaments in other parts of the state?? eg tournaments in central victoria? gippsland(like the old drouin open)?? Also what kind of support to starting up new clubs would be offered?? How are u going to help the country clubs? Im asking because if you were to be elected and introduced the CV membership fee of say $50 per person, how are country players going to benefit? In essence what are u going to do for them??

Leading to my second point, i would support the introduction of the CV membership fee, if it leads more support of Victorian chess, juniors and female players. But would there be a junior rate, family rate, country rate??
Where would u believe the money would be best allocated towards?? If the membership is able to increase the value of chess inthe whole Victoria, why are people seem so against it??

Lastly can you answer this question in 50 words or less.. In Your vision what is the role of CV??

ER
29-08-2009, 11:14 AM
(...) I do know that there is a Victorian Country Chess league which overseas the Victorian Country Championships, (...)
foreign intervention? which country? :cool: :P

MichaelBaron
29-08-2009, 11:34 AM
I think the problem with CV as rightfully pointed out by ChessGuru, Frankablanca and some others...is lack of clarity in what service they are providing for the money. When kids go to Chess Guru or Chess Ideas or While Elephant for chess lessons....they know what they are paying for. When someone joins a chess club - it is also quite transparent. But what do I get out of chess CV or ACF for this matter?

I am used to listening to ''Michael you have to contribute'' or ''Michael you have to help'' or ''Michael you have to donate''...and i am sick and tired of it. Is ACF a charity? I want to help my chess club, I want to help my chess friends and i want to help juniors in my club but Is it really my duty to support ''Chess in Australia''?

CV/ACF has to earn every single dollar coming from me! Alternatively, then can negotiate how we can ''do business together" (In cases of Chess Guru, White Elephant, Leonid, Nick Speck and other coaches this should be the approach). A while ago...i mentioned that CV website was not good...and i was happy to provide assistance to develop a new website for free (using resources available from my company) of course in this case i would want my company's banner right in the middle of the website...but that's business :).

I am in favor of development of country league and female league as suggested by Sarah. I also want junior chess to develop...but i do not want to subsidize them from my pocket.

When people want to make money from chess...i think it is actually very very good! The more chess-related businesses we are going to have -the better it is for the game. Furthermore, there is no reason why CV or ACF can not be run as a commercial enterprise! Why not pay CV president/Manager %age of the income generated (since it is impossible to afford his salary at the moment). Look at other sports - they are all managed by professionals.

There are so many business opportunities available for instance: corporate chess training, chess training for adults, training tournaments, social chess nights (these could be far greater income generators than tournaments, in fact)

Furthermore, it is beyond my comprehension why it is so hard for ACF etc to get sponsorship. Many chess clubs (and their opportunities and scope are considerably limited when compared with ACF/CV) have been able to generate some sponsorship. MCC, Noble Park, Canterbury to name a few...

At this point...it is time for me to start getting ready to go to MCC for Saturday Allegro...

Bye for now :)

P.S. I really enjoyed reading Smurf's interview to JAK. May be there is something that we all need to learn from it! CHESS HAS TO BE COME PROFESSIONAL!

ChessGuru
29-08-2009, 11:47 AM
See my blog post: Chess Victoria Mission Statement (http://cordover.com.au/2009/07/chess-victoria-mission-statement/)


To enrich the lives of Victorian Chess Players (more specifically, players at a standard 1200-2400) by by providing and supporting a framework of tournaments and clubs for people to play chess and reach their full chess potential. In addition CV should help Clubs and the ACF to achieve their objectives and act as an amalgamator of resources for clubs or commercial enterprises in Victoria.
(64 words - as I say in the Blog post, too long!)

I'd like to point out a few things:
1. You ask what is MY vision. I have to stress this - CVs Vision is not the same as MY vision ... I am not offering to solve all the problems of CV. I cannot do that on my own. I am offering my skills as one who can ask questions of the clubs, members, players etc and HELP to craft YOUR VISION for Chess in Victoria.

If that Vision turns out to be something that I can believe in and get excited by then of course I'll be 100% behind creating it. It is possible that Chess Players' vision of the future is something which is at odds with my personal values -- if that is the case I'll politely help you create the Vision; suggest some ideas about how to create it and then quietly walk away.

I am not here to tell you what to believe in.

2. If CV can be clear about their 'customer' (eg. Victorian chess player 1200-2400) then it helps everything else. In my attempted Vision above, a player in Melbourne is of equal importance/value as one in Drouin, Ballarat, Horsham or Mildura. The reason my business does a lot in regional areas is that my vision tells me to.... "to provide the opportunity for EVERY school-child to learn and play chess" .... I wouldn't be living my vision if I didn't do stuff in regional areas (regardless of cost/profitability). If my vision was "maximise returns blah blah" then I would NOT do things in regional areas.... everything flows from the Vision.

3. Some people have taken my Direct Membership (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/direct-membership/) idea a bit too much to heart. Everything on my blog is an IDEA. I have not seen a CV financial statement for years, I don't know how things are functioning at present -- and we haven't got a solid vision yet...so I can't possibly create a real plan. I do want to challenge people to think differently and that is why I am tossing up ideas all the time.... which of those ideas gets implemented will be about functionality - which ones help us reach our objective quickest?

This is a process:
a) Get clear as to what is YOUR vision (clubs, members, players)
b) Assess where we are NOW
c) Knowing where we are and where we want to be it becomes easy to MAP OUT A PATH to get there (with appropriate milestones along the way so we know if we're traveling the right way).

I need help firstly with a) getting a clear vision. This may take some time because as far as I can tell virtually no chess players have ever thought about what COULD be...they are always thinking about what HAS BEEN. Imagine your rating if you played chess like this!

4. Finally; who will DO IT?
It is YOUR vision. It is YOUR plan. It is YOU (chess players, clubs etc) who ultimately will have to actually IMPLEMENT the plan.

Let me be clear again ... I am offering Leadership, not offering to DO EVERYTHING.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Commonwealth Bank is not the CEO of CBA. He (and the rest of the Board) spends a few hours a month on the strategic direction of the bank and others implement those plans.

I am not surprised that nobody has stepped up to offer to DO anything at the moment - there has been nothing to get excited about. Things are changing and as the vision shapes itself and people start to believe and get excited then I am sure we'll have a willing team of those eager to be part of creating the outcomes.



gippsland(like the old drouin open)
The old Drouin Open died because it was run by a business and not a club. There was active discouragement by CV of business involvement (and financial penalties to have the event rated) and with no club in the area there was nobody to run it...

If the Vision tells us CV should be "...supporting a framework of tournaments..." then that is what CV would do. It doesn't differentiate between Club or Commercially run events.... so CV would then support the Drouin Open rather than discourage it.

ChessGuru
18-09-2009, 06:07 PM
Latest Blog Post (http://www.cordover.com.au).

Bill Gletsos
18-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Latest Blog Post (http://www.cordover.com.au).David please refrain from making posts like this.

Instead please give a quick summary of the blog post and then link to it.

Davidflude
19-09-2009, 11:20 AM
Comments on David Cordover's latest blog. For clarity David's blog is put in italics These comments are meant to be constructive.

I’ve estimated that 5000 potential new club members are slipping through our fingers every year!
Why? What’s the problem? And how can we stop it?
The vast majority of these players are players who have been coached but never reach the clubs.

I have noticed that while players from many coaches regularly turn up in our club especially at our monthly Rookies Cups we have received about one player who was coached by Chess Kids. To me this suggests that Chess Kids has done little in the past to support the clubs. There is no reason that this company cannot do more irrespective of the result of the Chess Victoria election.

Another problem which has not been mentioned is that there is a large population of chess players who only play on the internet and never play humans face to face. This is a potential source of players

Take a look at the pyramid of players and notice that chess clubs are focused on chess players rated between 1200 and 1600.* Our pyramid leaves the responsibility for players below 1200 to “schools/coaches”. Chess Kids has created a structure (the Player Pathway) to bring players from 0 to 1200 (then with a small overlap, pass them into the care of chess clubs).

I disagree strongly on this point. At Box Hill we have a thriving coaching system where many players start with negligible ratings and improve rapidly. Furthermore they learn and improve rapidly. (Increases of 300-400 rating points in a year are common.) Another point is that clubs should concentrate on a narrow range between 1200 01600 ratings. Approximately half of of our members have ratings in excess of 1600. We are certainly not going to abandon them.
At the top end I think that the top level of the pyramid is a very bad idea. Certainly Chess Victoria should provide tournaments for top players. However in my opinion these should as in the past be run by clubs (subject to a tendering process which has worked well to date).

But this still leaves a gap through which 5000 players a year are falling. Where is it?
We need to recognise that there are 2 categories of 0-1200 players. One is kids;
I have already mentioned my opinion that Chess Kids does very little to introduce children to the chess clubs.
the other is adults!
What if you are an adult and rated below 1200? Perhaps you’ve never played chess before! Here is a customer who is not being looked after, nobody even considers this customer.
We do at Box Hill. Yes we have adults in our coaching. There is considerable scope for expansion.

Looking back to a previous blog post we see that one of the greatest things about chess is its ageless nature. It doesn’t matter when you learn to play – and yet while lots is being done for kids to learn; Chess Victoria steadfastly ignores the possibility that adults might like to learn chess too!

This is a good point but I think that coaching should take place by commercial coaches and clubs

This is an area which one would suspect has great potential for the future. We keep hearing about the aging population – more and more people with time and money on their hands looking for something to do. They’re less likely to be physically capable of taking up basketball, ice-hockey or football… but want a challenging and social ’sporting’ environment. Plus take into account the benefits of chess; slowing dementia, preventing Alzheimer’s, keeping the mind active, combating depression etc.
Clubs can partner with coaches and schools to continue to generate new members from the 800-1200 range; but where do they find new adult club members who are currently in the 800-1200 range? Unless you can find new adult members then chess clubs are doomed anyway – if all your new members are 8 years old there is a lack of stability and a lack of organisational capability (not many 8 year-old’s want to be on a committee – although I know a lot who’d do a better job than some current committees!).

That is hyperbole David. Name one committee that would do a worse job than eight year olds.
Some clubs will find it in the parents who come with their kids. If you’re not looking there now; start looking!
In this case you are right on the money. One of the reasons that our club has been successful is that we have involved the parents. They do not needs to be able to play chess to provide great help to the club.


I think every club should be partnering not only with coaches/schools, but also with Social Chess Clubs. Elwood with the guys in the botanical gardens; Melbourne Chess Club with the guys at the Glenroy Library; Dandenong or Noble Park with the guys in the Springvale shopping centre; all clubs with their local U3A or community centre.
If clubs can develop a positive relationship with these social clubs by providing them with tuition, resources, advice and information then hopefully the Social Clubs will one day evolve to become Affiliated Clubs or the members who are looking to take the next step will comfortably make the transition the local Club.
This is an area in which Chess Victoria should be showing leadership and creating activity. Identify an area of weakness and do something to fix it.
CV and clubs tend to do what is easy – taking the path of least resistance. Usually that involves doing something that is already being done. Strong leadership wouldn’t be throwing energy into yet MORE junior chess and leaving thousands of adults who want to learn with nowhere to learn and thousands of juniors wanting to play with no club in their area to do so.
And we haven’t even mentioned the dire lack of female chess players…when will CV attack that challenge?

Clearly David Cordover has not checked this out by visiting our club. We have some very promising female players. Like current Australian and Victorian Champions.

In my opinion this is a very typical David Cordover Blog. It mixes some very good ideas, some half baked ideas and some factual errors.

SHump
19-09-2009, 06:54 PM
As to the online members being a source of new chess club members:

On chess.com there are 23,000 Australian players, while the ACF lists 3,000 active players. So there is certainly a POTENTIAL set of new members. How to crack the perceived advantages of online chess though: can do it from home, do it for free, whenever you want, and play against others of similar ability. The last item can be catered for by a chess club, the other items are harder.

Personally, I have decided this year to return to OTB chess and am loving it. However I also play a lot of online chess, so it is not an either/or decision. I use online chess to try out ideas and just to relax. Each to their own I suppose.

I am finding OTB chess however to be 'real' chess. Online chess has an element of 'uncaring' about it - the result does not matter as much to me as OTB chess. Maybe others also feel that way re OTB chess? To instill that ethos or excitement into new OTB players could be a way to attract new members. So at Ranges we see events like the Rookies Shield as a way to bring OTB chess to a new audience as it generally attracts beginners or newer players.

Carl Gorka
20-09-2009, 10:14 AM
David raises some good points but like so much else, isn't fully on the mark. I wish to raise some issues with you so as to further the constructive comments that you made:) I have not commented on most of your text which I am in full agreement with:clap:



I have noticed that while players from many coaches regularly turn up in our club especially at our monthly Rookies Cups we have received about one player who was coached by Chess Kids. To me this suggests that Chess Kids has done little in the past to support the clubs. There is no reason that this company cannot do more irrespective of the result of the Chess Victoria election.

As a chesskids coach I have encouraged a number of my stronger students to go to the rookies cups over the years and quite a few have turned up. I have also encouraged some to the MCC allegro's over the past year.


Another problem which has not been mentioned is that there is a large population of chess players who only play on the internet and never play humans face to face. This is a potential source of players

Very good point:clap:


I disagree strongly on this point. At Box Hill we have a thriving coaching system where many players start with negligible ratings and improve rapidly. Furthermore they learn and improve rapidly. (Increases of 300-400 rating points in a year are common.) Another point is that clubs should concentrate on a narrow range between 1200 01600 ratings. Approximately half of of our members have ratings in excess of 1600. We are certainly not going to abandon them.
At the top end I think that the top level of the pyramid is a very bad idea. Certainly Chess Victoria should provide tournaments for top players. However in my opinion these should as in the past be run by clubs (subject to a tendering process which has worked well to date).

I'm not sure of this pyramid system, I haven't looked at it in any depth, but the highlighted text is contentious. When MCC asked for this very subject to be raised at the President's meeting we were stonewalled by CV President who basically said the system is as it is and that is good enough.


Clearly David Cordover has not checked this out by visiting our club. We have some very promising female players. Like current Australian and Victorian Champions.

Perhaps you meant current Australian and Victorian Junior Champions. The fact that not enough women can be brought together to run a Victorian Women's Championship at the moment is not good. At the moment I can think of only 2 adult women at Canterbury Chess Club and a large number of Junior's who we can only hope will stay in the game. We at the MCC are faring no better in this department and I personally think it is something that needs to be addressed.

ChessGuru
20-09-2009, 06:53 PM
I have noticed that while players from many coaches regularly turn up in our club especially at our monthly Rookies Cups we have received about one player who was coached by Chess Kids.

Speaking of factual errors.... if you take a look at your top juniors you'll see quite a few who started with Chess Kids; Derek/Sally Yu, James Morris, Zhigen Lin, Thomas Feng, Jason Tang, Vanja Rosenblat, Kyle Gibson, (Laurence Matheson was in our Elite program, although we didn't coach his school) and I'm sure the list goes on --- in recent years (probably 4-5 years) Chess Kids has been very focused on growing the base of the pyramid and not done any private coaching or work with kids much above 800 strength. Due to the high turnover of club members it's no surprise that you see very few Chess Kids players left...because a Club is basically an environment suited to 1200-1600 players your new members are naturally coming from coaches such as Johansen, Hacche etc who do work with kids between 800-1200 and can easily take the next step.

If you think back a few years Chess Kids provided 50 of the 150 players in an Australian Junior. Recently Chess Kids took Tasmania from 4 juniors to 2000 juniors playing chess.

Besides which Chess Kids ROLE in the pyramid isn't to create 1200-1600 strength players -- our roles is to introduce chess to kids and teach them to love and enjoy chess for life... we do this for 10,000+ new players each year. So rather than criticize Chess Kids for doing their job (very well I'd say) why not HELP David Cordover develop a structure for chess in Australia which will help bring those 10,000 new players a year eventually into clubs and one day to become IM and GM players .... because clearly the structure now isn't really working.

Chess Kids is developing a sustainable and scalable model for taking kids 800-1200 now that we've worked out the 0-800....and one day, who knows, maybe Chess Kids will also look at the 1200-1600 players too.

Take a look at the really sticky players and I'd guess most of them have had some involvement with Chess Kids... I don't really think that getting a member for 6 -12 months then never seeing them again is a success.

I'd say we refer about 5 people per week to the Box Hill club. What happens to them after that I have no idea.


At Box Hill we have a thriving coaching system where many players start with negligible ratings and improve rapidly. Furthermore they learn and improve rapidly. (Increases of 300-400 rating points in a year are common.) Another point is that clubs should concentrate on a narrow range between 1200 1600 ratings. Approximately half of of our members have ratings in excess of 1600. We are certainly not going to abandon them.

So why do you only have between 100 or 200 members? Why is your turnover so high? If you were truly providing for your members you'd have 500+ by now. I'm not saying that Box Hill isn't doing well - it is clearly doing brilliantly compared to most other clubs --- but you do have a lot of privileges (strong partnership with Chess Ideas and now other businesses and a slightly incestuous marriage with Chess Victoria) which other clubs don't have. And you can ALWAYS do better.

Remember - Box Hill ISN'T the only club in Victoria. What about the others?? We all know you are doing well, now it is time to share some of your successes with other clubs.

What I am talking about is creating plans and structures which benefit ALL CLUBS not just Box Hill. That is what a Chess Victoria President should be doing.

It seems that Box Hill is scared that if other clubs are successful that will make BH less so...not true. I think all clubs would love to have the help and leadership of Box Hill, their committee and their members ...

Just because you FOCUS on a particular area doesn't mean that you ABANDON all others.

Your FOCUS might be to study the Alekhine defence; that is your primary opening. You still can do some work on the French; but that's more a backup. Your rating will continue to drop if you think you can be an expert in EVERY OPENING.

Focus.


At the top end I think that the top level of the pyramid is a very bad idea. Certainly Chess Victoria should provide tournaments for top players. However in my opinion these should as in the past be run by clubs (subject to a tendering process which has worked well to date).

For Box Hill it has. How's Mentone going? Or Frankston? Or MCC? Think about others please.


That is hyperbole David. Name one committee that would do a worse job than eight year olds.

You underestimate 8 year olds.


Clearly David you have not checked this out by visiting our club. We have some very promising female players, including the current Australian and Victorian JuniorChampions.

Stop thinking that the world revolves around Box Hill. Yes, you are great. Now let's see if we can turn that greatness from a small pond (box hill) to a bigger pond (chess victoria). That is my goal.

I'd like to see 35% female participation - even the mighty Box Hill is MILES away from that.

ChessGuru
20-09-2009, 06:59 PM
CV has 650 active players on the current rating list. Box Hill and Canterbury together have about 200 members.

30% of the entire state's rated players being from one club is a sign of a very sick Chess Victoria. I know Box Hill thinks that everything is great - but it's not.

Things are going well for Box Hill and we are all happy for you - but there needs to be radical change. Box Hill membership should be MAXIMUM 5% of the number of rated players in Victoria - and while Box Hill will paranoidly assume that means my evil plan is to somehow cut their membership to 33; the real intention of my running for CV president is to bring the total number of rated players to 5000...

I'll leave it to the maths genius' at BH to work out what that means for your club.

Spiny Norman
20-09-2009, 07:24 PM
Re: Box Hill "sharing their success" ... they have done so with Croydon Chess Club. When we were in startup mode, I made a point of getting to know Trevor Stanning, and I made a couple of visits to Box Hill to meet Trevor and other members of the club. I asked a lot of questions, such as "What do you think are the 3 biggest factors in your success?".

Two of those things I remember off the top of my head (I did write them down and factor them into our planning at the time). One was "Develop a healthy junior chess program". The other was "Recognise/reward your volunteers".

Croydon certainly has been known for a thriving junior environment. For that, we thank Box Hill, Chess Kids (who provided us with coaches for the first year or so until we could provide our own), and particularly N.Y.Wong who has been an outstanding volunteer servant of our club, running our junior program for the past 4 years.

I am not so sure that we have succeeded particularly in properly rewarding our volunteers, however we do try to make a point of thanking them profusely and recognising them at our end of year functions. In my first couple of years (as President of the club), I took the committee out for dinner at my own expense at the end of the year. In more recent years, our new President (Richard Goldsmith) has continued in his own style, by putting on some functions at his home.

From our perspective, in addition to the two Box Hill-recommended elements mentioned above, I would add Croydon's own "key success factor" ... have both a motivated President in place AND ensure that everyone (President, Committee, key volunteers) have a clear understanding of the culture of the club that you are trying to create. Croydon set out to create a very positive, friendly, social environment that was as much about creating and maintaining friendships as it was about the chess. That is the heart and soul of our club; it is a key differentiating factor that we hope visitors and members recognise as something unique and valuable.

Some comments have been made about "churn". I talked with Box Hill about this in the early days. If I recall correctly, they were experiencing churn of about 30% of their membership base every year. Croydon's experience is very similar. I do not know (but would be very keen to learn!) whether this is common to all VIC chess clubs, or whether it is something that both Box Hill and Croydon have as a result of their focus on junior chess. I suspect the latter myself. Our adult membership experiences churn of perhaps 20%. Juniors would be closer to 40% I would think.

One other reason that I think churn is relatively high: lack of volunteer resources. I know for a fact that if we had more volunteers we could substantially reduce this, simply by improving the level of personal communications between the club and members.

Spiny Norman
20-09-2009, 07:32 PM
For the record, in case anyone is interested:

Croydon has over 50 members at present
12% are female
60% are juniors

Mischa
20-09-2009, 08:00 PM
For what is is worth I will give you our story.
My son witnessed a chess game in grade one. Spelbound. We borrowed then bought Lego chess. My aunty gave him some pieces. My partner went to a chess shop to buy a board and saw a notice for chess lessons. Signed my son up.
While there a coach noticed his abililty..thought that was funny.
Both the coach and the organizer went out of their way to help and convince a non pushy parent that this kid had talent...I still thought it was funny
David Cordover (with hiccups in between) gave my son free coaching and tournament entry and pushed and encouraged him through many tournaments.
Along with his staff most notably David Hacche
I never at any point had any help or input from chess Victoria
In fact before Leonid was involved my son was of no interest unless he played at Box Hill
That is a bit harsh probably and sorry
but My son has had no help at all from CV or the ACF nor any mentoring
the only interest and assisstance has been unofficially from David Hacche
Leonid Sandler and David Cordover

ER
20-09-2009, 08:05 PM
Re: Box Hill "sharing their success" ... they have done so with Croydon Chess Club. When we were in startup mode, I made a point of getting to know Trevor Stanning, and I made a couple of visits to Box Hill to meet Trevor and other members of the club. I asked a lot of questions, such as "What do you think are the 3 biggest factors in your success?".

Two of those things I remember off the top of my head (I did write them down and factor them into our planning at the time). One was "Develop a healthy junior chess program". The other was "Recognise/reward your volunteers".

Croydon certainly has been known for a thriving junior environment. For that, we thank Box Hill, Chess Kids (who provided us with coaches for the first year or so until we could provide our own), and particularly N.Y.Wong who has been an outstanding volunteer servant of our club, running our junior program for the past 4 years.

I am not so sure that we have succeeded particularly in properly rewarding our volunteers, however we do try to make a point of thanking them profusely and recognising them at our end of year functions. In my first couple of years (as President of the club), I took the committee out for dinner at my own expense at the end of the year. In more recent years, our new President (Richard Goldsmith) has continued in his own style, by putting on some functions at his home.

From our perspective, in addition to the two Box Hill-recommended elements mentioned above, I would add Croydon's own "key success factor" ... have both a motivated President in place AND ensure that everyone (President, Committee, key volunteers) have a clear understanding of the culture of the club that you are trying to create. Croydon set out to create a very positive, friendly, social environment that was as much about creating and maintaining friendships as it was about the chess. That is the heart and soul of our club; it is a key differentiating factor that we hope visitors and members recognise as something unique and valuable.

Some comments have been made about "churn". I talked with Box Hill about this in the early days. If I recall correctly, they were experiencing churn of about 30% of their membership base every year. Croydon's experience is very similar. I do not know (but would be very keen to learn!) whether this is common to all VIC chess clubs, or whether it is something that both Box Hill and Croydon have as a result of their focus on junior chess. I suspect the latter myself. Our adult membership experiences churn of perhaps 20%. Juniors would be closer to 40% I would think.

One other reason that I think churn is relatively high: lack of volunteer resources. I know for a fact that if we had more volunteers we could substantially reduce this, simply by improving the level of personal communications between the club and members.

One of the best posts!!! Ever! :clap: :clap:

Mischa
20-09-2009, 08:12 PM
I have to add also from many chess players...again most notably Malcolm Pyke

Mischa
20-09-2009, 08:14 PM
So what do CV or ACF do to mentor or assist their elite juniors?

ChessGuru
20-09-2009, 09:01 PM
Re: Box Hill "sharing their success" ... they have done so with Croydon Chess Club. When we were in startup mode, I made a point of getting to know Trevor Stanning, and I made a couple of visits to Box Hill to meet Trevor and other members of the club. I asked a lot of questions, such as "What do you think are the 3 biggest factors in your success?".

I commend you for taking the initiative and looking for a role-model in the BHCC. Asking the right questions and then following up with a sensible plan to create a highly successful club - you've also been able to pass the knowledge on to the next generation of presidents/committee. Great work. Not everyone is as skilled as you are.

What did CV do for you in your startup phase?

CV should be the ones out taking the initiative -- teaching you from the start how best to run a club; and they'd have the experience because they asked the questions of not just BH, but dozens of other clubs and have pooled all the best resources. Would be nice if they had a 'startup pack' for you wouldn't it?

Then once you've passed "startup" and are into 'growth phase' they come back to you with a new pack of information - here's your next step. Different resources, different plan - but helping you to take the next step forwards.

CV could even (hold your breath) ENCOURAGE new clubs to start! Wow, revolutionary thinking!! Perhaps give away a few free chess sets to a potential start-up club.... could that be a good investment?

I made a blog post (http://cordover.com.au/2009/08/more-chess-clubs/) about this on August 25.

It shouldn't be Box Hill who takes it on themselves to go out looking for startup clubs to help... and it shouldn't be left to smart new presidents to chase down Box Hill (or Trevor Stanning) and ask the right questions. This is clearly a role that CV should be playing.

Of the 12% female memberships at Croydon; how many are juniors also?

Without actually thinking about it I'd suggest a target of at least 70% adult/30% junior for clubs... if it is more than 50% juniors then you're really a JUNIOR CLUB who happens to let adults play.... of course all clubs should have an associated Junior Club which would be entirely juniors.

Perhaps that's what we want -- Box Hill probably has over 50% juniors too. Maybe we should just scrap the whole idea of Chess Victoria and adult chess and just become a giant Junior Chess Association (but we can let a few adults play if they like).... ??

Denis_Jessop
20-09-2009, 10:25 PM
So what do CV or ACF do to mentor or assist their elite juniors?

The AusJCL, and before it, it ACF, have had the Ergas Elite Junior Development Squad operating for a number of years thanks to the generous sponsorship of Dr Henry Ergas. He contributed many thousands of dollars over the period until recently. I understand that the AusJCL is making sure that the squad continues to operate.

DJ

ChessGuru
20-09-2009, 10:32 PM
The AusJCL, and before it, it ACF, have had the Ergas Elite Junior Development Squad operating for a number of years thanks to the generous sponsorship of Dr Henry Ergas. He contributed many thousands of dollars over the period until recently. I understand that the AusJCL is making sure that the squad continues to operate.

Yes, but the cost to parents to attend the Squad is more than the benefit of attending. They may as well stay home and spend the money they could have spent participating in Ergas on some books or private coaching....

In fact, that's generally what they do!

Problem: No clear objective; no performance measures; no vision or plan. Very little feedback or change. Same problem, different place.

Don't worry Denis - I'll get round to helping the ACF one day... gotta fix up my own back yard first. :) Give it 5 years to get Victoria back on track and then I'll help create a working Vision and Plan for the ACF.

Denis_Jessop
20-09-2009, 11:02 PM
Yes, but the cost to parents to attend the Squad is more than the benefit of attending. They may as well stay home and spend the money they could have spent participating in Ergas on some books or private coaching....

In fact, that's generally what they do!

Problem: No clear objective; no performance measures; no vision or plan. Very little feedback or change. Same problem, different place.

Don't worry Denis - I'll get round to helping the ACF one day... gotta fix up my own back yard first. :) Give it 5 years to get Victoria back on track and then I'll help create a working Vision and Plan for the ACF.

As for the Ergas Squad, you are totally off course.

As for the ACF, don't bother - you'll be too late.

DJ

Spiny Norman
21-09-2009, 06:01 AM
What did CV do for you in your startup phase?
CV helped us quite a bit. I made contact with Gary Wastell early on in the process of starting our club. He helped arrange for us to borrow CV equipment (boards, pieces, clocks) until we could arrange a council grant and get our own gear. He also came out to visit the club on several occasions, lending us much needed support merely by his presence. He and I talked quite a lot about the bigger chess picture which I (at that time) knew absolutely nothing about.


CV should be the ones out taking the initiative -- teaching you from the start how best to run a club; and they'd have the experience because they asked the questions of not just BH, but dozens of other clubs and have pooled all the best resources. Would be nice if they had a 'startup pack' for you wouldn't it?
A startup pack would have been excellent ... however I recognise that a volunteer-staffed organisation like CV is in the same boat as a volunteer-staffed club. There are never enough resources and skills available in order to take on projects like that.


Of the 12% female memberships at Croydon; how many are juniors also?
1/2 juniors and 1/2 adults.


Without actually thinking about it I'd suggest a target of at least 70% adult/30% junior for clubs... if it is more than 50% juniors then you're really a JUNIOR CLUB who happens to let adults play.... of course all clubs should have an associated Junior Club which would be entirely juniors.
I would need to see some justification for setting targets like that. The very reason that Croydon has been successful (to date) is at least partly due to the fact that we have pursued a deliberate strategy to have more juniors than adults.

And why another club just for the juniors? I know some clubs do that (e.g. Box Hill) and have been quite happy with that approach. But I don't see that it is necessary for "all clubs" because:
1. it adds a huge amount of administrative overhead
2. it soaks up available volunteer resources who are then split between two clubs

It might be a good idea for bigger clubs, but for a smaller club the lack of 'critical mass' in terms of volunteers could be fatal. On that basis, I would not personally recommend it for a small club.


Perhaps that's what we want -- Box Hill probably has over 50% juniors too. Maybe we should just scrap the whole idea of Chess Victoria and adult chess and just become a giant Junior Chess Association (but we can let a few adults play if they like).... ??
There are plenty of clubs which have virtually ZERO juniors. There are a few which are focusing on junior chess. Its part of how we see ourselves culturally as a club. Its where we fit into our local community.

I see no need to have "one size fits all" strategy for chess clubs, which is what your earlier comments seem to be suggesting might be the way to go. I disagree. Each club needs its own reasons for existence, based on how it sees itself in relation to its local community.

However I do believe that all clubs, without exception, ought to be aware of the bigger picture and at least in some respects arrange themselves to be "compatible with the big picture" so that chess in VIC can be looked at coherently. Its up to CV to set the big picture in place: vision and mission ... and then communicate with the clubs to explain both how CV can help the clubs, and how the clubs can help CV with its big picture (which ought to be obviously beneficial for the clubs; if it isn't, something in the big picture is wrong).

MichaelBaron
21-09-2009, 08:47 AM
For the record, in case anyone is interested:

Croydon has over 50 members at present
12% are female
60% are juniors

:clap:

arosar
21-09-2009, 10:50 AM
Yes, but the cost to parents to attend the Squad is more than the benefit of attending.

Is this a true statement? Any parents whose kids participated in the Ergas squad wanna chime in here?

Tnx.

AR

Mischa
21-09-2009, 10:54 AM
The AusJCL, and before it, it ACF, have had the Ergas Elite Junior Development Squad operating for a number of years thanks to the generous sponsorship of Dr Henry Ergas. He contributed many thousands of dollars over the period until recently. I understand that the AusJCL is making sure that the squad continues to operate.

DJ


Yes sorry,
I had totally forgotten about Ergas.
My wrong

ChessGuru
21-09-2009, 11:04 AM
As for the ACF, don't bother - you'll be too late.
:(
Come on Denis; don't be so negative. I'm sure you can hang in there and keep the ACF afloat for just a few more years....

ChessGuru
21-09-2009, 11:30 AM
CV helped us quite a bit.
:clap: Good to hear!


A startup pack would have been excellent ... however I recognise that a volunteer-staffed organisation like CV is in the same boat as a volunteer-staffed club. There are never enough resources and skills available in order to take on projects like that.

Set your expectations higher and you might just get what you expect!

CV has been running since 1938 - if they just spent half-an-hour per YEAR on putting together a 'start-up pack' then it would be done and brilliant! No matter how low your expectations a half-hour is nothing much!


I would need to see some justification for setting targets like that. The very reason that Croydon has been successful (to date) is at least partly due to the fact that we have pursued a deliberate strategy to have more juniors than adults.


Valid point. As I said, it was a 'without thought' statement.


And why another club just for the juniors?

I think you've got very different customer needs most of the time with adults and junior - by 'another club' I wouldn't mean a whole new admin; just different times (eg 5-7pm juniors, 7-10 seniors) so you can run different events to cater to different needs.


There are a few which are focusing on junior chess. Its part of how we see ourselves culturally as a club. Its where we fit into our local community.

Good point.


I see no need to have "one size fits all" strategy for chess clubs, which is what your earlier comments seem to be suggesting might be the way to go. I disagree. Each club needs its own reasons for existence, based on how it sees itself in relation to its local community.

Excellent. So CV needs to provide 'start-up' and other packs with a range of options: Pick at the start what kind of club you'd like to end up as. Do you want to be a Noble Park (very strong players) or a Box Hill (junior heavy, large numbers) or perhaps something different (could be a whole range of options to choose from).


and how the clubs can help CV with its big picture (which ought to be obviously beneficial for the clubs; if it isn't, something in the big picture is wrong).

Are you interested in being on the CV executive next year?

Basil
21-09-2009, 11:38 AM
David, I believe I saw you mention previously, words to the effect of, 'should you be elected, you wouldn't do the (slog) work, but would invite others who share you vision to do so'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but
a) you basically did say this
b) you're basically criticising the status quo
c) to improve it, you'll get other people to do the work

It all sounds a little disingenuous and megalomaniacal to me - apart from a few other choicities I care not to throw in.

ChessGuru
21-09-2009, 01:48 PM
David, I believe I saw you mention previously, words to the effect of, 'should you be elected, you wouldn't do the (slog) work, but would invite others who share you vision to do so'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but
a) you basically did say this
b) you're basically criticising the status quo
c) to improve it, you'll get other people to do the work

It all sounds a little disingenuous and megalomaniacal to me - apart from a few other choicities I care not to throw in.

a) Yes. There's a lot to be done, I can't do it all. Nor would me doing it all be a sustainable model. Nobody would want this.

b) I am saying there are opportunities to make change and to improve the current state of affairs.

c) A leader who is over-controlling and detail oriented is much more a megalomaniac. I will trust in those who work with me, trust in the clubs and the members to make decisions and take action to benefit the long-term prospects of chess in Victoria. It will be quite a change from previous committees where no individual had power to make decisions outside a meeting (which is bad form for a number of reasons). With greater delegation I personally will actually have much less control over the actions of the organisation.

If clubs and members want change then there will be people willing to do the work. If not, then the status quo can remain. I am making an offer to help; nobody is under any obligation to accept.

In life you get out what you put in. Chess committee and clubs often whine about such and such not helping them or not doing enough. But really CV/ACF etc has no moral right to EXPECT anything from anyone (yet they both EXPECT their fees as a 'right' and not a 'privilege'). They should be grateful and thank and focus on what someone DOES do -- even if it is only 10 minutes or a small effort.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2009, 05:53 PM
So what do CV or ACF do to mentor or assist their elite juniors?

Lets expand the question why do not CV or ACF do anything for anyone? :) ...other than collect rating fees :)

Spiny Norman
21-09-2009, 06:38 PM
I think you've got very different customer needs most of the time with adults and junior - by 'another club' I wouldn't mean a whole new admin; just different times (eg 5-7pm juniors, 7-10 seniors) so you can run different events to cater to different needs.
I agree with this thinking, and in fact it is similar to how Croydon has organised itself. The junior program runs from 6:30pm-7:30pm and then the senior program from 7:45pm-10:30pm. This gives the opportunity for some interaction between juniors and seniors at the changeover time. It also makes it relatively easy for those who are helping with junior coaching/admin to stay on and play in the adult tournaments if they wish.


Are you interested in being on the CV executive next year?
I am barely keeping my head above water with my role as Croydon Treasurer. I have very little experience of running things at a state level, whereas I have accumulated a fair bit of experience over the years with helping run not-for-profit groups at a community level.

Plus, someone with a good deal of administrative experience once suggested to me that it was best to be either a good club man, or a good CV man, but not to try to be both. I suspect there is a fair bit of wisdom in that suggestion.

I cannot imagine being interested in a CV or ACF role in the foreseeable future.

ChessGuru
21-09-2009, 06:53 PM
Plus, someone with a good deal of administrative experience once suggested to me that it was best to be either a good club man, or a good CV man, but not to try to be both. I suspect there is a fair bit of wisdom in that suggestion.

Ahh, I'd not realised you were otherwise engaged!

Yes, I made a blog post about the very topic-- best to FOCUS on one thing; either club or state.

Basil
21-09-2009, 07:27 PM
a) Yes. There's a lot to be done, I can't do it all. Nor would me doing it all be a sustainable model. Nobody would want this.
My initial impression was that you intended to do little beyond directing traffic. This is fine in business, but when short on volunteers ... Thanks for clarifying.


b) I am saying there are opportunities to make change and to improve the current state of affairs.
Sure. And this is true of every administration, including my previous and your intended. Please be gentle on the incumbents, lest you plan on reviewing your own intended future administration with a damning stick (as opposed to a quaint Rude-style self-deprecating (puking) one.

ChessGuru
21-09-2009, 11:42 PM
My initial impression was that you intended to do little beyond directing traffic. This is fine in business, but when short on volunteers

Not at all - I believe that a leader has to 'walk the talk' and be prepared to do ANYTHING. That's what leadership is. If the CEO of Telstra wasn't prepared to take out the bins, scrub the toilets or talk to a disgruntled customer - they shouldn't be CEO... Now, a CEO shouldn't be spending all their days talking to upset customers because that isn't an effective way to run the organisation. But they still need to lead by example.


Sure. And this is true of every administration, including my previous and your intended. Please be gentle on the incumbents, lest you plan on reviewing your own intended future administration with a damning stick (as opposed to a quaint Rude-style self-deprecating (puking) one.

I will be reviewing my own administration with a very harsh eye. Nothing is ever beyond review and improvement. I don't believe that I should lower my expectations just because it is a volunteer organisation. There are some damn fine volunteer organisations in the world!

You get what you expect. This is true of kids when you're teaching them and volunteers in a chess club. I have HIGH expectations and I am confident that anyone who volunteers will be able to meet them.

This is a change in attitude - most people have very LOW expectations of ACF, CV, Club administrators etc.... they shouldn't be surprised that with low expectations they get disappointing results.

Basil
22-09-2009, 12:14 AM
Not at all - I believe that a leader has to 'walk the talk' and be prepared to do ANYTHING. That's what leadership is. If the CEO of Telstra wasn't prepared to take out the bins, scrub the toilets or talk to a disgruntled customer - they shouldn't be CEO... Now, a CEO shouldn't be spending all their days talking to upset customers because that isn't an effective way to run the organisation. But they still need to lead by example.
You do twist straight lines of enquiry into threads of your own chosing and then add a lot of elementary and irrelevant spin - very often.

I was enquiring as to whether you intended being hands-off. You had earlier implied the affirmative. Instead of settling on the correction, you wibble on with some TAFE Management 101 twaddle (and mangle it - it's 'walk the walk, talk the talk' BTW). And 'cleaning the toilets'? - sheezuz - how clichéd can you get? Simple unadulterated hyperbole befitting wannabes, not doers. What do you think chess administrators have been doing for the past 100 years?

Secondly, you head off stating that there are some "damn fine volunteer organisations in the world"! Well of course there are (you're presently knocking two of them!!) More 101 twaddle. No one said otherwise. You fold this statement neatly into your answer as if it is supporting information to either a question posed of you or a retort to someone else's erroneous statement - neither of which is the case.

You sir, are a dribbler. A potent one at that. You will have a number of people follow you, none of whom will be very skilled at delving deeply into the whimsical spin you spew at the drop of a hat.

In short, you are insult to volunteer organisational intelligence - and I fear - not divulging that all the while you're learning on the job. FYI we recently had two clowns here in Queensland sprouting "reform, admins asleep at the wheel, who is working for who?" type questions. The best thing was to give them a go.

One was tossed in universal disgrace after six weeks of unadulterated mayhem; the other spent a year on council and then sent me a an apology detailing how he had absolutely no idea what he had been dribbling about at the time.

You remind me of the best of both of them. I believe I shall leave you and Victoria to your own devices.

Desmond
22-09-2009, 09:04 AM
I have a business. I sell the letters a,b,c,d,e. I sell lowercase and uppercase, fancy text and plain text, cursive and printed, even the funny ones with lines above the a and tails below the c.

There is another entity that sells the full alphabet. They only sell it in uppercase. One size fits all approach. Doesn't have all the fancy stuff, but hey we do compete in some regard.

Wouldn't it be nice if they stopped competing with me. After all, a,b,c,d,e isn't their core business is it? What if I could convice them to only sell f-z. I wonder how I would go about doing that.

Davidflude
22-09-2009, 11:20 AM
This question has not been addressed.

Are you running as an individual intending to work with whoever the annual meeting elects or are you intending to run a slate of candidates to fill all positions on the executive?

ChessGuru
22-09-2009, 12:02 PM
What do you think chess administrators have been doing for the past 100 years

I honestly don't know....there are 2800 or so active rated players in Australia. So I guess that the sum total of administrators have over the last 100 years, between them, been finding one person per fortnight who wants to play chess. That's not bad for 1 Aus Federation, 7 state associations, some junior/womens'/special interest leagues and an ever dwindling number of clubs.

You are so right - knocking on the door of two of the finest volunteer organisations in the world. Puts Red Cross and Rotary Club to shame... :whistle:

Actually, I do remember last time I was on the ACF what we did at one meeting - took 8 of us about 2 hours to work out the countback system for Australian Junior Championships (which then a couple of years later reverted back, and then changed again, and then again ... probably something important enough to warrant 16 man-hours a year on).


You sir, are a dribbler. A potent one at that. You will have a number of people follow you, none of whom will be very skilled at delving deeply into the whimsical spin you spew at the drop of a hat.

I respect and appreciate that you take the time to share your opinion. I value that you are taking your precious time to share your wisdom with us all here on this forum. You are quite clearly an outstanding example of an achiever and leader of volunteer organisations.

Please, help me, with your vast experiences, to learn 'on the job' and describe for me all your achievements while you were a volunteer for CAQ .... I'd like to learn and, in-sha'-Allah, be able to replicate just a fraction of your results in my lifetime. I am a great believer in mentors - and I've clearly been lucky enough to stumble on the best -- I am indebted to you already and hope you will find it in your warm heart to share some more with me.

Already your insicive comments and crisp, clear suggestions have provided a framework and a guide for all of us reading them to improve. A most effective use of time and energy (both yours and mine). I particularly like your focus on the good, your optimism, the positive feedback, lack of personal attacks and clear recommendations (and step-by-step explanaitions) for improvement. I have no doubt that your style really brings out the best in people and inspires them to achieve even more...

:)
It's quite clear that I'm full of hot air - no results to speak of... particularly not in the field of chess, so throw down the gauntlet. Set me a challenge.

Basil
22-09-2009, 03:38 PM
More dribble - taking one specific line of conversation and (shamelessly? ineptly?) steering it to another soap box.


What do you think chess administrators have been doing for the past 100 years?
I honestly don't know...

In this case you had earlier invoked the declaration of toilet cleaning being honourable if necessary. I pointed out that that is, and has been, the purview of volunteers and is hardly bringing anything to the table - despite you presentation of it as the dawning of a new era. You then reply with three paragraphs of wibble - entirely circumventing your toilet claim and my debunking of it as elementary and obvious service prerequisite.


You sir, are a dribbler. A potent one ...
I value that you are taking your precious time to share your wisdom with us all here on this forum. You are quite clearly an outstanding example of an achiever and leader of volunteer organisations. Please, help me ...
You are beyond help. You are a self-serving business person with limited clue of what you're talking about. I do share my opinions regarding chess administration on this board with peers from time to time.

Regardless none of that was my point. This is the part I believe you need to have tattooed on to your bank deposit book, your bedroom mirror and your Chesschat log-on page: I didn't run for president. I was asked. Regardless of running or being asked, I would never have any platform or manifesto based on attacking or deconstructing previous regimes and their capabilities. Simply present you plan. (some advice)

Once president, I very much learned on the job - quietly, openly and gratefully from the guidance of Ian Murray (primarily) as well as Graeme Gardiner, Pat Byrom and Gail Young. (acknowledge you are learning on the job - some advice).

Had I wished to run, I would have offered my services on Counil in a lesser role first. I suggest you consider same. (some advice).

You are a rude, brash, clueless incompetent. You require a massive wake-up call, copious sedatives and an injection of humility. The people you seek to knock at both CV and ACF level have more talent in this sphere in their little finger than you are likely to manage in a financial year. (an accurate observation)

ChessGuru
22-09-2009, 04:40 PM
I do share my opinions regarding chess administration on this board with peers from time to time.
I will keep an eye out for them.


I didn't run for president. I was asked.
Funnily enough - so was I. By 2 clubs. Had it been just one I'd probably not have bothered.


Regardless of running or being asked, I would never have any platform or manifesto based on attacking or deconstructing previous regimes and their capabilities. Simply present you plan. (some advice)
Excellent advice. I presume you've not read my blog then... nor my first posts on this or 'the other' forum, nor my letter to clubs.... As you'd discover I don't have any platforms based on attack or criticism of previous regimes. I am indebted and grateful to all those who served prior to me...


Once president, I very much learned on the job - quietly, openly and gratefully from the guidance of Ian Murray (primarily) as well as Graeme Gardiner, Pat Byrom and Gail Young. (acknowledge you are learning on the job - some advice).
Very sage advice. I couldn't agree more about learning...Not a day goes past when I do not learn something new. Without learning and growth (every day) you may as well be dead.

Perhaps we're not so different; we seem to have the same ideas, both working towards the same ultimate goals.... I'll look you up for a coffee next time I'm in your area.

I genuinely would like to learn from you...in your time on CAQ what do you see were your greatest achievements?


Had I wished to run, I would have offered my services on Counil in a lesser role first. I suggest you consider same. (some advice).
Thank you for the advice. Again perhaps you don't know the full story... I have been involved on club, CV and ACF executives from 1994 to about 2004 in various roles. I founded and was President of the VicJnrChessLeague (which integrated into CV shortly after I was voted out) -- I'd say that 10 years of 'lesser roles' on all forms of organisation gives me sufficient experience to have a go at the "top job".

Or have things changed so significantly since 2004 that I won't recognise the issues any more? If so then perhaps you are right; I'll need to start from scratch...


You are a rude, brash, clueless incompetent. You require a massive wake-up call, copious sedatives and an injection of humility.
I admit (possibly my biggest flaw) that I do have less patience and tolerance than I should for the various chess administrators (at all levels) who accept lower standards, who think small, who have limited communication skills, who are ineffective and inefficient. It is born of a frustration that I can see the possibilities and the potential that exist and of my desire to open their eyes to the possibilities as well! I know they mean well...but sometimes after years of thinking the same way it just becomes a habit....

To those who feel the brunt of my frustrations I accept that it may appear to be rude and brash. I will try to be more patient in the future. Unfortunately some people take it personally. However, I never attack anyone personally. I hope that for some it's a breath of fresh air.

For the record - to anyone to whom I appear rude and brash: I apologise for my manner and style if it upsets you. I do not intend anything to be taken personally. Particularly in a written form (such as here) you only receive 7% of the message I am sending ... I urge you to meet face-to-face to understand the full meaning of the communication.

Ultimately we are all working towards the same goal - that of making Australia a great place to play chess and to give the opportunity to play to everyone living in Australia.


The people you seek to knock at both CV and ACF level have more talent in this sphere in their little finger than you are likely to manage in a financial year. (an accurate observation)
I have never knocked any person. I believe that everyone is doing the best they can with the resources available to them (and I've said that a number of times before). I also believe that there are better ways ... but that doesn't imply anything about the people who are in the habit of thinking about chess the way they do.

Spiny Norman
22-09-2009, 06:33 PM
IFunnily enough - so was I. By 2 clubs.
I won't ask "which ones" ... however I will ask:

-- what reasons did they give for asking you, and have those reasons been clearly stated here as yet?

-- are we talking about "two clubs" (i.e. I would take this to mean that their Committee took a group decision on behalf of their members to approach you) ... or are we talking about "some people from two clubs" (which might mean a few interested people, or notable people, or two Presidents of clubs, but not necessarily two clubs)?

I ask because I am curious as to what would motivate two VIC clubs to approach you to run as a candidate, when you might be considered "a somewhat controversial candidate" by the broader VIC chess community generally?

ChessGuru
22-09-2009, 09:16 PM
-- what reasons did they give for asking you, and have those reasons been clearly stated here as yet?

I think there were a couple of issues. Certainly the biggest is communication (lack thereof) ... the second is the entanglement of one particular club and CV (which I think is a symptom - and not anything deliberate or untoward). But in general just 'the winds of change'...most Vic clubs seem to have a lot of positive energy now and CV just isn't keeping up with the attitude of the times.

We're talking about "some (significant) people from two clubs". I am sure that it wasn't a 'committee decision' to approach me to chat about CV...


you might be considered "a somewhat controversial candidate" by the broader VIC chess community generally?

You know, I'd have thought that too! :D

When I wrote my first blog post (and was still undecided if I should bother launching my name 'out there' for another battering) I was giving myself a 10% chance of actually winning. In the end I decided that I could do a lot of good for Victoria just by nominating....by nominating, people would have to start thinking. Hopefully they'd start thinking a bit differently. And most likely there would be some changes made and energy created just to 'keep Cordover out'.

Fear isn't my preferred motivator, but it works well enough in the short term. My nomination has got some people energetic because they are afraid of my winning; and other people energetic because they hope I'll win. Worst that happens is I get a public bashing from people like trigger happy forum-addicts Zaprudsky, Gletsos and Duggan (I'm tough enough to handle that) and I am not elected. The positives; some issues will be raised, considered and hopefully some positive change made. Existing CV policy and standards will have to be raised because there is an alternative...

I have been surprised, could even say stunned, by the support I've been getting. I now rate my chances of winning the election at an even 50%, and probably higher.

We all know that the most vocal are usually the minority, its much easier to get all up in arms about something than it is to express thanks, gratitude or support. I guess this has skewed the impression of how controversial a candidate I really am...

Basil
22-09-2009, 11:41 PM
Funnily enough - so was I. By 2 clubs. Had it been just one I'd probably not have bothered.

The point is moot now, but for clarity, rather I was asked to be president - not suggested by a couple of people to run for president, which is the situation in your case.
I accepted, was elected at the following AGM, was re-elected a further three times before declaring an inability to perform the role due to family reasons.


As you'd discover I don't have any platforms based on attack or criticism of previous regimes.
The tenor of your pitch is that members are being duped by backward-thinkers.


... I'll look you up for a coffee next time I'm in your area.
If you are genuine, you would be most welcome.


I genuinely would like to learn from you...in your time on CAQ what do you see were your greatest achievements?
I'll pass on that in this DC CV thread save to cite i) fin. consolidation, ii) club communication and iii) council harmony.
Achieved as a unified team. Achieved as pressing priorities at that stage in the CAQ's life/ cycle. It should be noted that for the second part of my tenure I was more of figure-head due to a combination of weekly interstate travel and again egregious personal circumstances.


I admit (possibly my biggest flaw) that I do have less patience and tolerance than I should for the various chess administrators (at all levels) who accept lower standards, who think small, who have limited communication skills, who are ineffective and inefficient.
QED. As I have said before, leave them out of it. You can't have it both ways where on the one hand you claim undying gratitude for all and sundry (at the base of your previous post) as well as barely contsrained contempt (which as I have said comes across whether you are aware of it or not).


However, I never attack anyone personally. I hope that for some it's a breath of fresh air.
It is. And that is where you have the advantage over me!

Mischa
23-09-2009, 12:27 AM
I thought you were going to leave chess Victoria to the victorians?
Or rather to our own devices?

Basil
23-09-2009, 09:59 AM
I thought you were going to leave chess Victoria to the victorians? Or rather to our own devices?
I did say that at #112, but was re-engaged at #115.

MichaelBaron
23-09-2009, 12:17 PM
A far simpler solution is to engage in discussions with fide to be able to have tournaments fide-rated by submitting them to fide directly (offer fide some money that we are paying to ACF and chess CV as Fide loves money). After this, any clubs that want to stay part of CV or ACF are welcome to do so...
I am a member of MCC to be honest i am not very sure what ACF and/or Chess CV has been doing for my club other than collecting rating fees and rating tournaments.

Give me the rating software....i can do this for free :)....

Desmond
23-09-2009, 12:32 PM
A far simpler solution is to engage in discussions with fide to be able to have tournaments fide-rated by submitting them to fide directly (offer fide some money that we are paying to ACF and chess CV as Fide loves money). After this, any clubs that want to stay part of CV or ACF are welcome to do so...
I am a member of MCC to be honest i am not very sure what ACF and/or Chess CV has been doing for my club other than collecting rating fees and rating tournaments.

Give me the rating software....i can do this for free :)....Logistically the direct model would likely be a nightmare for FIDE. Instead of having to process 150 files (1 for each country) now you have to process one for every club and tournament organiser in the world. How many clubs on average per country do u reckon? 20? 100? Thats a lot of additional processing. Add to this that its not just the processing, but also the results are quality controlled. If it contains mistakes it has to go through multiple people who check it (state ratings officer, national officer). Go from training 150 people on how to submit it properly to training 15,000. Then resubmit a lot of them a few times to allow for mistakes and corrections. I wonder if this will see a reduction or an increase in the cost of processing for FIDE? :hmm: I wonder if they will pass that cost on to consumer? :hmm:

Edit: Not to mention how is FIDE going to check for fraudulent results? The local ratings officer is in a good position to do that. FIDE would have no hope.

Bill Gletsos
23-09-2009, 01:35 PM
A far simpler solution is to engage in discussions with fide to be able to have tournaments fide-rated by submitting them to fide directly (offer fide some money that we are paying to ACF and chess CV as Fide loves money).This is not going to happen as FIDE only liaise directly with National Federations.

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 02:05 PM
This is not going to happen as FIDE only liaise directly with National Federations.

Correct for the time being; due perhaps to Boris' stated logistical problems.

Boris - I suspect that those logistical problems are easily solved and FIDE may well move down this path sooner that Bill thinks. Technology to the rescue. :)

After all, if internet banking and online share-trading are possible how can you possibly imagine a situation where it wasn't possible to process/rate a mere smidge of a handful of chess tournaments around the world?

PS. Just quietly - the logistics have already been solved and the technology is available and being used AS WE SPEAK here in Australia. Chess Kids is rating 100,000 games per year with NO PROCESSING, across 5 states and dozens of event organisers. Yes, that's about 5 times what the ACF rates - and players' ratings are INSTANTLY available online (http://chesskids.com.au/ratings/). Kids are too impatient to wait 3 months for ratings to be 'published'. :)

Don't mention this to Bill (particularly if you think it's a good thing) - he's pretty confident that FIDE will never do the same thing; but petrified that Chess Kids is going to take over the ACF system.

Desmond
23-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Correct for the time being; due perhaps to Boris' stated logistical problems.

Boris - I suspect that those logistical problems are easily solved and FIDE may well move down this path sooner that Bill thinks. Technology to the rescue. :)

After all, if internet banking and online share-trading are possible how can you possibly imagine a situation where it wasn't possible to process/rate a mere smidge of a handful of chess tournaments around the world?

PS. Just quietly - the logistics have already been solved and the technology is available and being used AS WE SPEAK here in Australia. Chess Kids is rating 100,000 games per year with NO PROCESSING, across 5 states and dozens of event organisers. Yes, that's about 5 times what the ACF rates - and players' ratings are INSTANTLY available online (http://chesskids.com.au/ratings/). Kids are too impatient to wait 3 months for ratings to be 'published'. :)

Don't mention this to Bill (particularly if you think it's a good thing) - he's pretty confident that FIDE will never do the same thing; but petrified that Chess Kids is going to take over the ACF system.Do you send out thousands of invoices? Do you have accounts receivable teams in place to follow those up?

Do you check for fraudulent results?

Bill Gletsos
23-09-2009, 02:31 PM
Correct for the time being; due perhaps to Boris' stated logistical problems.

Boris - I suspect that those logistical problems are easily solved and FIDE may well move down this path sooner that Bill thinks. Technology to the rescue. :)But you forget grasshopper that FIDE is made up of National Federations, not individual members.
If you really believe those National Federations would want individual organisers/clubs bypassing them and submitting events directly to FIDE then you are off in dream land.


PS. Just quietly - the logistics have already been solved and the technology is available and being used AS WE SPEAK here in Australia. Chess Kids is rating 100,000 games per year with NO PROCESSING, across 5 states and dozens of event organisers. Yes, that's about 5 times what the ACF rates - and players' ratings are INSTANTLY available online (http://chesskids.com.au/ratings/). Kids are too impatient to wait 3 months for ratings to be 'published'. :)So you are rating 5 times the ACF results yet your ratings are a joke.


Jason Tang 1644(CK) 1996(ACF) 1893(FIDE)
Eugene Schon 1642(CK) 2171(ACF) 2173(FIDE)
Lawrence Matheson 1533(CK) 2011(ACF) 2056(FIDE)
Bobby Cheng 1431(CK) 2163(ACF) 2190(FIDE)
Cedric Antolis 1473(CK) 2094(ACF) 1884(FIDE)

Davidflude
23-09-2009, 02:55 PM
First comparison between ratings on different basis always leads to inconsistencies.

It is possible to have a rating system where results are right up to date. I know this because ICCF (International Chess Federation) does this with correspondence games played on their web server. Ratings are adjusted result by result within hours and can be checked on-line.

Well it appears to me that David has a well proven, tested and stable system. My suggestion is that he pursues licencing the software to Fide and National chess Federations. This would be a great profit centre for Chess Kids.

With Fide talking about bringing the floor of their ratings system to 1200 they are going to need an automated system.

arosar
23-09-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't have a problem with this concept of an online rating system. Conceptually, it seems like the POA. Obviously the mathematics just need to be sorted out.

One problem I see, though, is that our mate the Guru here seems to be angling for business, strategically positioning himself in an administrative capacity with a business objective ultimately in mind. I don't feel comfortable about that.

AR

ER
23-09-2009, 04:18 PM
One problem I see, though, is that our mate the Guru here seems to be angling for business, strategically positioning himself in an administrative capacity with a business objective ultimately in mind. I don't feel comfortable about that.

AR

G'day Amiel, whatever your feelings are, don't underestimate David! BTW I enjoyed your excellent segment on MCC here
http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2009/09/photos-from-mcc-allegro.html
Good work and congrats for giving my fellow Mexicans a lesson or seven in Allegro! :clap:

Vlad
23-09-2009, 04:33 PM
So you are rating 5 times the ACF results yet your ratings are a joke.


I guess the point that Bill did not make clear was that the ratings by Guru are not consistently lower than both ACF and FIDE ratings. Rather they are just not representative of kids strength. Take FM Bobby Cheng with his rating of 1431 (ACF 2163) and take Joshua Devarajh with his rating of 1283 (ACF 1013). The difference in the Guru's ratings is around 150 points which means that Joshua should be able to get something like 3-3.5 points out of 10 games against Bobby. Do you seariously believe that a 1000 rated player can get 3 points out of 10 games from a 2100+ player?

So I think Bill summarized nicely Guru's ratings are a joke.

arosar
23-09-2009, 04:40 PM
G'day Amiel, whatever your feelings are, don't underestimate David!

Underestimate The Guru?

No, I think you misunderstand. I am expressing a concern. It's something along the lines of an old Chesschat favourite: COI.

AR

ER
23-09-2009, 04:49 PM
Underestimate The Guru?

No, I think you misunderstand. I am expressing a concern. It's something along the lines of an old Chesschat favourite: COI.

AR

lol OK I dare not ask the meaning of COI! :lol:

frankablanca
23-09-2009, 05:21 PM
I guess the point that Bill did not make clear was that the ratings by Guru are not consistently lower than both ACF and FIDE ratings. Rather they are just not representative of kids strength. Take FM Bobby Cheng with his rating of 1431 (ACF 2163) and take Joshua Devarajh with his rating of 1283 (ACF 1013). The difference in the Guru's ratings is around 150 points which means that Joshua should be able to get something like 3-3.5 points out of 10 games against Bobby. Do you seariously believe that a 1000 rated player can get 3 points out of 10 games from a 2100+ player?

So I think Bill summarized nicely Guru's ratings are a joke.

I think a lot of the strong junior's CK ratings were acquired a few years ago. In Bobby's case, it was two years ago when he played at CK tournaments. The total number of games he played at CK was only around 10. And there was no high rated opponents in those tournaments for him to get a good rating. If all those strong juniors played at CK tournaments consistantly like they are with ACF rated tournaments, then their CK rating should be close to ACF.

frankablanca
23-09-2009, 05:40 PM
I don't have a problem with this concept of an online rating system. Conceptually, it seems like the POA. Obviously the mathematics just need to be sorted out.

One problem I see, though, is that our mate the Guru here seems to be angling for business, strategically positioning himself in an administrative capacity with a business objective ultimately in mind. I don't feel comfortable about that.

AR

If a rating system is mathematically sound, meet the user's needs, and cost effective, then the inventor/owner of that system should be rewarded. Like any business setup, if you solved your customer's problems, you deserve business success. A business promoting chess is good news to the chess community and should be encouraged. I can't see anything wrong with Guru have a businss objective in mind. If he can get 1000s of kids involved in chess, and make a fortune out of it, then good on him!

Bill Gletsos
23-09-2009, 05:56 PM
lol OK I dare not ask the meaning of COI! :lol:COI - Conflict of Interest.

arosar
23-09-2009, 06:01 PM
If a rating system is mathematically sound, meet the user's needs, and cost effective, then the inventor/owner of that system should be rewarded. Like any business setup, if you solved your customer's problems, you deserve business success. A business promoting chess is good news to the chess community and should be encouraged. I can't see anything wrong with Guru have a businss objective in mind. If he can get 1000s of kids involved in chess, and make a fortune out of it, then good on him!

Then he should pitch for this business properly. He doesn't need to get involve with the politics. That he makes certain suggestive comments, while pitching for a political spot, is the only reason why I'm worried.

Else, I'm all for the capitalist enterprise.

AR

ER
23-09-2009, 06:06 PM
COI - Conflict of Interest.
Thanks Bill! :)

Bill Gletsos
23-09-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't have a problem with this concept of an online rating system. Conceptually, it seems like the POA. Obviously the mathematics just need to be sorted out.

One problem I see, though, is that our mate the Guru here seems to be angling for business, strategically positioning himself in an administrative capacity with a business objective ultimately in mind. I don't feel comfortable about that.

ARExactly.

In fact it could easily be the case of:

a) Start running a ratings service based on events run by the chess business as kids like to see ratings.
b) No need to directly charge for the service because you are charging for the events that the kids are playing in that your chess business is running.
c) Extend the service by offering a free service to others organisers running junior events
d) Start to deliberately undermine the official service by offering your service for free or at a very low fee for adult events with the aim of replacing the official rating service
e) Eventually replace the official service.
f) Wait a period say 12-24 months after replacing the official service when you have everyone locked in and then start charging fees for the service at a rate much greater than fees of the now defunct official service.

Davidflude
23-09-2009, 06:12 PM
I don't have a problem with this concept of an online rating system. Conceptually, it seems like the POA. Obviously the mathematics just need to be sorted out.

One problem I see, though, is that our mate the Guru here seems to be angling for business, strategically positioning himself in an administrative capacity with a business objective ultimately in mind. I don't feel comfortable about that.

AR

Well I am happy with it

Basil
23-09-2009, 06:13 PM
f) Wait a period say 12-24 months after replacing the official service when you have everyone locked in and then start charging fees for the service at a rate much greater than fees of the now defunct official service.
Or even at any commensurate rate. In this way, any operator would have effectively commercially commandeered the system. But that wouldn't happen, would it? Victoria? You'd ask for a caveat, wouldn't you?

Spiny Norman
23-09-2009, 06:31 PM
I think a lot of the strong junior's CK ratings were acquired a few years ago.
That was my instinctive reaction too. I expect its a lack of recent relevant data input, rather than a mathematical issue.

Vlad
23-09-2009, 07:19 PM
I think a lot of the strong junior's CK ratings were acquired a few years ago. In Bobby's case, it was two years ago when he played at CK tournaments. The total number of games he played at CK was only around 10. And there was no high rated opponents in those tournaments for him to get a good rating. If all those strong juniors played at CK tournaments consistantly like they are with ACF rated tournaments, then their CK rating should be close to ACF.

Just looking at the information provided by Guru, since Oct 2007 Bobby has played in 4 competitions which were rated by Guru, the most recent one was in July 2009. Given that the difference in rating (2163-1431) is 732 it is clear (well, at least to me) that there are serious mathematical problems with Guru's rating. His K-factor is just too low. Even if Bobby played in all tournaments organized by Guru it will take years and years for his rating to adjust to where it should be.

CameronD
23-09-2009, 07:23 PM
Just looking at the information provided by Guru, since Oct 2007 Bobby has played in 4 competitions which were rated by Guru, the most recent one was in July 2009. Given that the difference in rating (2163-1431) is 732 it is clear (well, at least to me) that there are serious mathematical problems with Guru's rating. His K-factor is just too low. Even if Bobby played in all tournaments organized by Guru it will take years and years for his rating to adjust to where it should be.


Ratings from different pools are not comparable. More realistic is to compare ratrings in the CK pool. Are other 2100 players rated 1400 and are the players in the system ranked approximately correctly, if so then the system is fine.

ps - my FIDE rating is always going to be greater than my ACF, why... because my ACF games are just 60+10 compared to 90+30 and more in Fide games. There is a huge improvement in my play at the longer time controls. Id play at least 300 points higher, probably more.

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 07:51 PM
The ratings are mathematically the same as ICC, FIDE and USCF. It's a pretty standard formula/tables which can be found online by anyone. In fact the ACF used to use the same maths back before the Glick-tsos system.

Go easy on the 'accuracy' of the system -- it's only been running a year or two and as frankablana points out a lot of the players you've compared to ACF/FIDE haven't played in tournaments to get their ratings up. The good thing is that the maths can be changed at any time....just plug in a new formula and re-rate...take about 20 minutes. :)

Thanks Davidflude for your suggestion to go to FIDE and National Federations -- I'd start with the ACF but I think they're somewhat against the idea. :) Perhaps I'll try FIDE first....

I do like Bill's paranoia - some small logical flaws; but logic probably isn't his strong point.


d) Start to deliberately undermine the official service by offering your service for free or at a very low fee for adult events with the aim of replacing the official rating service
e) Eventually replace the official service.
f) Wait a period say 12-24 months after replacing the official service when you have everyone locked in and then start charging fees for the service at a rate much greater than fees of the now defunct official service.

Just wondering - who's decision would it be if d) and e) happened? Who's responsibility is it? Would it be the CLUBS, the PLAYERS, the STATE ASSOCIATIONS who CHOOSE to use a different system -- or are you one of those "they just don't know what's good for them" sorta guys...

I really shouldn't bother, but it's just such an insane idea that Bill should be saying that 24 months after everyone CHOOSES to stop using the ACF ratings system that the ACF system is still the 'official service'. No, sorry Bill - it's now a meaningless service because nobody wants it anymore; something bigger, better, faster, cheaper etc came along. The ACF ratings system is now like an Atarii computer or Word Perfect.

Anyway, now we're up to f) and while everyone has CHOSEN to use the new and improved ratings system they are suddenly 'locked in' when fees rise. Because somehow the freedom of CHOICE to leave the ACF system has now evaporated and they can't CHOOSE to leave the new system.

And I'm pretty sure that customers are always happy to find prices skyrocketing ... so that would be a good commercial decision in the first place. We clearly see that it happens all the time from banks, insurance, phone companies, even supermarkets... they suck you in with their low prices and then once you're locked in they just charge a fortune and there is nothing you can do!

Scary that someone can "commandeer' the system so easily...makes you think that the same thing could happen outside of chess....someone could come along and just become the Premier of a State, then, wielding their influence (which everyone would be powerless to stop), march into Canberra and just IMPOSE a new public transport system on the entire country. Faster, cleaner and cheaper..... but then, then.... in just a year or two or forty...anything could happen....they (the evil 'they') could up the prices so much that taking the bus to the dole-office would eat up your entire week 'earnings'. Or charge thousands of $'s to take a train into the city....you couldn't afford to buy anything then! And trams; oh gosh...don't. It makes me cringe to think of what they'd do to the trams...:cry: standing room only!

I wish we lived in a free society where people could make their own choices and take responsibility for their own lives...

Basil
23-09-2009, 08:04 PM
David, the Australian rating system is NOT yours (or anyone's) for the taking. It is NOT to be privately run.

Your 'priors', which I believe were passing-off now pale in the face of your case to usurp and posses the national rating system!!! - if I've understood you correctly. You've certainly made a case for it but I recall you previously said that Bill was being paranoid on the issue. Which is it?

I would be grateful if you would simply and clearly rule in or out whether you intend to 'oversee', 'encourage', 'manipulate', 'entwine' or otherwise promote your ratings system in Victorian chess - and I think Victoria should demand to know in advance of elections.

My interest in this particular instance is of the national clean-up that would required if sufficient Victorians left their brains on the tram on election day.

Z&MLoh
23-09-2009, 09:18 PM
Including secondary customers (players 1200-2400) still gives Chess Victoria a vastly different Customer to Chess Kids. Chess Kids vision, plan and business is all based around kids and players in the rating range 0-800 (the Elite program takes them to 1200).



Something doesn't gel...If Chess Kids is focussing only on players in the range of 0 to 800 (up to max of 1200) as you've said in post#27, you are only covering part of the spectrum of players. How can your system ever be accurate enough for those players outside of that range?

OK...OK, I'm not thinking outside the square. If you build it, they will come.


Mike

Vlad
23-09-2009, 09:27 PM
Go easy on the 'accuracy' of the system -- it's only been running a year or two and as frankablana points out a lot of the players you've compared to ACF/FIDE haven't played in tournaments to get their ratings up.



No, sorry Bill - it's now a meaningless service because nobody wants it anymore; something bigger, better, faster, cheaper etc came along. The ACF ratings system is now like an Atarii computer or Word Perfect.


In the first comment you seem to be saying that your system does not have a good predictive power. In the second comment suddenly your system is the best. Do not you think that the predictive power is actually the most important goal of any rating system?;)

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 10:52 PM
David, the Australian rating system is NOT yours (or anyone's) for the taking. It is NOT to be privately run.

I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree on this point. I believe this is quite fundamental.

There is a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE. The ACF runs a ratings system, an Australian Chess Championships, a Grand Prix, etc etc.... these are PRIVILEDGES which come with responsibilities and with thanks to the players who support them.

RIGHTS are things which are to be expected REGARDLESS of performance or what you give. Basic human rights of safety, freedom etc...

The ACF system and everything else IS "up for grabs" because the ACF has no "RIGHTS" - they must earn and continue to earn every moment of every day the priviledge to provide ratings for chess players in Australia.

Nobody 'owes' the ACF (or CV or FIDE for that matter) anything. The ACF must earn and continue to earn the opportunity to provide services and events to players.

Having said that I will answer your question. I have no intention of usurping my future position on CV to undermine the ACF rating system. I will go direct to the ACF to make the change.

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Something doesn't gel...If Chess Kids is focussing only on players in the range of 0 to 800 (up to max of 1200) as you've said in post#27, you are only covering part of the spectrum of players. How can your system ever be accurate enough for those players outside of that range?

The maths of a rating system doesn't care what the numbers are. Chess Kids is focused on players 0-800; the software to calculate the ratings doesn't even notice the names or ratings of the players.

If the ACF were to implement the system it would be a different "pool" much ACF and FIDE ratings are unique pools. They could even use their own maths... basically all a rating system is is a nice way of displaying some numbers.

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 11:18 PM
In the first comment you seem to be saying that your system does not have a good predictive power. In the second comment suddenly your system is the best. Do not you think that the predictive power is actually the most important goal of any rating system?;)

Drug -- I think you know the answer to that one. :)

The predictive power of a rating system is one of the less important goals of a ratings system.

I do not wish to comment on the mathematics of the various rating systems. ACF uses a Glick-tsos system; FIDE uses ELO -- statisticians can argue until the cows come home as to which is 'better'. Do you really care if your rating is accurate to 2 decimal places? I don't think so -- my guess is most people would be happy if it was accurate to about the nearest 50 points. You can work this out by asking a few chess players "What's your rating?" and when they say "Oh, about 1400" or "It used to be 1900" check out their actual rating. :)

I just think mine looks prettier (and not needing ratings officers is a bonus). Which IMO is really what a ratings system is about -- players want to look at their rating. If it looks nicer then it's a better system. By the way I didn't say mine WAS better -- I was just wandering down Bill's imaginary path of the commandeering of the ACF ratings.

ChessGuru
23-09-2009, 11:51 PM
I would be grateful if you would simply and clearly rule in or out whether you intend to 'oversee', 'encourage', 'manipulate', 'entwine' or otherwise promote your ratings system in Victorian chess - and I think Victoria should demand to know in advance of elections.

I think I should elaborate a little....

My commercial plans for the ratings system which I run will not change because I am running for, nor when I become, President of CV. My commercial plans for anything will not change because I am President of CV. In fact, my business and CV are completely different, separate and exclusive.

On rare occasions, as in the past, as now and will continue in the future, I am sure that my business will have commercial dealings with CV. Nobody would expect this not to be the case. When this happens the dealings will be public, completely transparent and I will not vote on a motion which would give any related entity (ie company, person, or self) any financial reward. (Which is different from the current state of affairs).

I will demand of the ACF the same as what I will encourage Clubs to demand of CV. That is, the ACF provide a SERVICE and not be simply a Tax Collector. Just as I believe that Clubs should be demanding and expecting value for money, an excellent service from CV.

If the Quahog Chess Federation or any other person/body can offer a better service than the ACF for the same price or better I would be OBLIGED in the best interests of Victorian Chess Players to seriously consider that offer; taking into account of course all ramifications and consequences. The ACF must EARN the PRIVILEGE of CVs hard earned $s and moral support. And continue to earn it every day of every year...and what's worse; every time the ACF performs we are going to expect MORE the next time; EVERY TIME, forever.

Specifically addressing your question on ratings (and going further than you implied) - if I were asked to vote now on if CV should continue having events ACF rated I would vote YES to standard ratings and NO to rapid ratings. The rapid system just isn't well supported (NSW had one event rated on the last rapid list, QLD one event)... as someone pointed out in an earlier post; ratings are only valid within a POOL of players. When you have a supposedly Australia wide system but there is insufficient cross-pollination then it really means you're running 4 or 5 separate systems anyway. If there were something cheaper than $1.10 per player per event (Bill please correct my figures if I'm wrong) which over the 20 or so Victorian rapid events each year comes to about $1100 (again Bill, please correct me) for the year then yes I'd probably vote to go with the alternative.

You do realise the alternative ALREADY EXISTS and has been offered to clubs FREE of charge. Yet they CHOOSE to continue rating events... I don't see why that would change just because I got a new hat.

With my biz. hat on - would I go to the trouble of setting up a database for rating rapid events in Victoria for $1000 per year? Not for the money - but for the opportunity to feed Billy Boy's paranoia....we'll I'd have to consider it. :lol:

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 12:02 AM
The ratings are mathematically the same as ICC, FIDE and USCF.Wrong.
The USCF formulas are quite different from FIDE.

It's a pretty standard formula/tables which can be found online by anyone.FIDE use the normal expectancy curve, USCF uses the logistic curve.

In fact the ACF used to use the same maths back before the Glick-tsos system.Yes and it was woefully ineffective at handling improving players especially juniors.

Go easy on the 'accuracy' of the system -- it's only been running a year or two ...)But you said you were rating 1000,000 games a year.
that means if it has been running a couple of years you should have 200,000 games of data. That is around 5 times the amount of data that the ACf system would have in the same period and yourt ratings are rubbish.

Well Done. :whistle:

I do like Bill's paranoia - some small logical flaws; but logic probably isn't his strong point. And to think your supporters were claiming you dont play the man.
They obviously do not know you very well at all.

Just wondering - who's decision would it be if d) and e) happened? Who's responsibility is it? Would it be the CLUBS, the PLAYERS, the STATE ASSOCIATIONS who CHOOSE to use a different system -- or are you one of those "they just don't know what's good for them" sorta guys...People could trust whoever was proposing their replacement system for them to do the right thing and keep their fees free or very low.

I really shouldn't bother, but it's just such an insane idea that Bill should be saying that 24 months after everyone CHOOSES to stop using the ACF ratings system that the ACF system is still the 'official service'.Never said that. Point e) says replace the official service. As such up until the ACF system is replaced it is the official service. Also point f) says "after replacing the offical service" and refers to the "defunct offical service".

No, sorry Bill - it's now a meaningless service because nobody wants it anymore; something bigger, better, faster, cheaper etc came along. The ACF ratings system is now like an Atarii computer or Word Perfect.No it does not mean that at all.
It just means they were taken in by a snake oil salesman.

Anyway, now we're up to f) and while everyone has CHOSEN to use the new and improved ratings system they are suddenly 'locked in' when fees rise. Because somehow the freedom of CHOICE to leave the ACF system has now evaporated and they can't CHOOSE to leave the new system.Dont play stupid.
After having replaced the ACF system for 2 years it would take a while for the ACF system to get its ratings back up to speed if the decision was made to switch back due to the sudden increase in fees by the new operator.

Z&MLoh
24-09-2009, 12:05 AM
The maths of a rating system doesn't care what the numbers are.

Yes, you are right, the maths doesn't care but people do.

You have managed to piss off a number of people in both chess forums trying to sell your ideas for change. Organisations need to constantly change or at times, reinvent itself in the ever-changing landscape otherwise it will become obsolete and die. I get that but if this is the sort of leadership that the Victorian chess public can expect IF you get elected to the position of President of Chess Victoria then the Victorian chess public can no more expect a more functional Chess Victoria under your leadership than one under the current administration. You have claimed here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=255752&postcount=106)that there is a lot to be done and you can't do it all. Your characteristically argumentative streak is more likely to put people off rather than encourage people to come on-board and contribute to the better of Chess in Victoria.

Reminds me of a scene from "Top Gun" where Iceman says to Maverick:


Maverick... It's not your flying,
it's your attitude.

The enemy's dangerous, but right now
you're worse. Dangerous and foolish.

You may not like who's flying with you,
but whose side are you on?

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Having said that I will answer your question. I have no intention of usurping my future position on CV to undermine the ACF rating system. I will go direct to the ACF to make the change.Sure. :whistle:

So if CV has to pay the ACF 30 cents per player per game for every normal game rated and 10 cents per player per game for every rapid game rated, what fees under a CV Cordover presidency would you be suggesting that a player would need to be paying for CV to process the tournament and pass it on to the ACF for rating.

Specifically how much would you be charging each Victorian player on a annual basis as a memebrship/rating fee and how much would you be charging each player on either a per tournament fee or pergame per tournament fee.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 12:14 AM
Drug -- I think you know the answer to that one. :)

The predictive power of a rating system is one of the less important goals of a ratings system.This is one of the most stupid comments anyone could make when it comes to rating systems and just shows your complete lack of understanding.

I do not wish to comment on the mathematics of the various rating systems. ACF uses a Glick-tsos system; FIDE uses ELO -- statisticians can argue until the cows come home as to which is 'better'. Do you really care if your rating is accurate to 2 decimal places? I don't think so -- my guess is most people would be happy if it was accurate to about the nearest 50 points. You can work this out by asking a few chess players "What's your rating?" and when they say "Oh, about 1400" or "It used to be 1900" check out their actual rating. :)You clearly do not understand the concept of predictive accuracy. It isnt about ratings being correct to 2 decimal places, its about how accuratly they predict results in future rating periods.

I just think mine looks prettier (and not needing ratings officers is a bonus). Which IMO is really what a ratings system is about -- players want to look at their rating. If it looks nicer then it's a better system.You are clearly utterly clueless about the aim of rating systems.

Ninja
24-09-2009, 12:18 AM
I think I should elaborate a little....
With my biz. hat on - would I go to the trouble of setting up a database for rating rapid events in Victoria for $1000 per year? Not for the money - but for the opportunity to feed Billy Boy's paranoia....we'll I'd have to consider it. :lol:

I don't get this bit ??
Your existing system is rating "rapid" games almost exclusively so what is there to set up ??

Bill also looked at the wrong stats if he wishes to prove the system is a joke (in its current format). He should be comparing ratings to ACF rapid ratings which would actually make them look a little bit better. Then after that he should have a look at the number of errors within the system. How many players are in there 2 , 3 or more times with different spelling (normally obvious typos) and how many other errors are in the database. All this when the data is being entered by TRAINED PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES of Chesskids. Imagine the mess if it was open to individual clubs :rolleyes:

A "real time" rating system is what FIDE seem to be working towards and what the ACF should be looking at also, complete with stats, player profiles etc. and by all means the clubs should have a direct portal into the system. The state rating officers job then changes to a much easier one of simply logging in and checking the uploads for errors and then passing to the national ratings officer for final checking before going live. With volunteers you would not be able to expect the ratings to update "overnight" however maybe the time savings through semi-automating the system might allow for the ratings officer position to be a paid position which would then allow a SLA to be enforced.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 12:21 AM
If there were something cheaper than $1.10 per player per event (Bill please correct my figures if I'm wrong) which over the 20 or so Victorian rapid events each year comes to about $1100 (again Bill, please correct me) for the year then yes I'd probably vote to go with the alternative.Why can you not even make the slightest attempt to get the figures correct rather than just appraently pulling them from thin air.

The ACF charges 10 cents per player per game for rating rapid events.
The typical rapid in Victoria is 7 rounds or less. That is therefore at most 70 cents per player per event


You do realise the alternative ALREADY EXISTS and has been offered to clubs FREE of charge. Yet they CHOOSE to continue rating events... I don't see why that would change just because I got a new hat.

With my biz. hat on - would I go to the trouble of setting up a database for rating rapid events in Victoria for $1000 per year? Not for the money - but for the opportunity to feed Billy Boy's paranoia....we'll I'd have to consider it. :lol:You have never come across as the altruistic type.

ChessGuru
24-09-2009, 12:43 AM
Why can you not even make the slightest attempt to get the figures correct rather than just appraently pulling them from thin air.
Sorry - I went to the ACF website first to try and find the actual figures. :wall:


The ACF charges 10 cents per player per game for rating rapid events.
The typical rapid in Victoria is 7 rounds or less. That is therefore at most 70 cents per player per event

So all the Victorian events contribute around $700 per year. Doesn't this prove my point even more.... have you worked it out yet? My ratings system is NOT A THREAT .... I don't want to undermine the ACF system.

Move on - find the next thing to get all het up about.

Actually...I've got just the thing. I just know you'll love it... You'll have to wait a while though... ;)

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 12:56 AM
Sorry - I went to the ACF website first to try and find the actual figures. :wall:Of course if you actually bothered to rate events in the ACF system you might actually know the ACF admin fees.

You could have even asked the CV Treasurer. :doh:

The ACF fees have been announced in the ACF newsletter.
Surely you subscribe. :whistle:

As for them not being on the ACF website, since individual state associations often charge additional fees for rating events over and above the ACF admin fee then it makes little sense to publish the ACF fees on the ACF website.

So all the Victorian events contribute around $700 per year. Doesn't this prove my point even more.... have you worked it out yet? My ratings system is NOT A THREAT .... I don't want to undermine the ACF system.You have not ruled out rating Victorian or any other events at long time controls.

ChessGuru
24-09-2009, 10:46 AM
Of course if you actually bothered to rate events in the ACF system you might actually know the ACF admin fees.

You could have even asked the CV Treasurer. :doh:

The ACF fees have been announced in the ACF newsletter.
Surely you subscribe. :whistle:

As for them not being on the ACF website, since individual state associations often charge additional fees for rating events over and above the ACF admin fee then it makes little sense to publish the ACF fees on the ACF website.
You have not ruled out rating Victorian or any other events at long time controls.

We have fundamental difference of opinion about communication.

I believe that the MEANING of the communication is the RESPONSE you get.

That means if someone can't find what you're trying to say in 60 seconds on the ACFs website - then it hasn't been said. Or if someone mis-interprets your words then it is the COMMUNICATOR who needs to change what they are saying; not blame the listener for 'not getting it'.

It is the ACFs responsibility to make it easy to find what people want to hear; not the users responsibility to dig it out. The same thing applies to CV.

MichaelBaron
24-09-2009, 10:57 AM
In the meantime, while all these wonderful discussions are taking place, why not abolish the rating fee or reduce it substantially?

ER
24-09-2009, 11:02 AM
In the meantime, while all these wonderful discussions are taking place, why not abolish the rating fee or reduce it substantially?

hey Michael, have a dig at the Clubs also, it's time to pressure them for lower membership fees! ;)

Desmond
24-09-2009, 11:05 AM
In the meantime, while all these wonderful discussions are taking place, why not abolish the rating fee or reduce it substantially?Why?

Spiny Norman
24-09-2009, 02:38 PM
On rare occasions, as in the past, as now and will continue in the future, I am sure that my business will have commercial dealings with CV. Nobody would expect this not to be the case. When this happens the dealings will be public, completely transparent and I will not vote on a motion which would give any related entity (ie company, person, or self) any financial reward. (Which is different from the current state of affairs).
This is the area I am most worried about. "Not voting" on such matters is not an appropriate way of dealing with such a conflict of interest.

(1) you should declare publicly ahead of time any areas where you have business interests that intersect with chess ... that would be anything to do with chess coaching, chess tournaments, ratings systems, sponsorships, prize money, calendar of events ... etc etc

(2) you must absent yourself not just from voting but from all discussions of these topics and your mere presence in the room where the discussion takes place, even if you do not speak, is an unacceptable conflict of interest ... you should physically leave the room before the discussion of those agenda points begins

(3) you need to be aware that even if the discussion doesn't directly involve anything to do with Chess Kids explicitly, it might involve a competitor of Chess Kids ... and as such, your influence/participation in the discussion constitutes a conflict of interest ... and again, you should leave the room

That is the proper way to deal with a conflict of interest situation.

I am not aware whether the current members of CV understand conflicts of interest. I suspect they do not. Or if they do, a blind eye is turned. But your participation in running for president turns the spotlight on to these matters. If they weren't a public issue before, they sure as heck are now.

I would be interested to know how you intend to execute your duties as President when many (most?) of the discussions you would need to have would constitute a conflict of interest? How do you intend to deal with these COI's?

I would also be interested to learn how the current Executive are currently addressing their COI's.

Perhaps I ought to make myself a delegate to the next CV AGM and ask a few of these questions publicly and get a formal response made. There are a number of current CV Executive members who are in a similar boat as you, even if arguably to a somewhat lesser degree.

Garvinator
24-09-2009, 03:37 PM
This is the area I am most worried about. "Not voting" on such matters is not an appropriate way of dealing with such a conflict of interest.

(1) you should declare publicly ahead of time any areas where you have business interests that intersect with chess ... that would be anything to do with chess coaching, chess tournaments, ratings systems, sponsorships, prize money, calendar of events ... etc etc

(2) you must absent yourself not just from voting but from all discussions of these topics and your mere presence in the room where the discussion takes place, even if you do not speak, is an unacceptable conflict of interest ... you should physically leave the room before the discussion of those agenda points begins

(3) you need to be aware that even if the discussion doesn't directly involve anything to do with Chess Kids explicitly, it might involve a competitor of Chess Kids ... and as such, your influence/participation in the discussion constitutes a conflict of interest ... and again, you should leave the room

That is the proper way to deal with a conflict of interest situation.
And this is where it can become difficult if David is President. He may be required to abstain from voting or not even partake in discussions so often that the position he occupies becomes so 'conflicted' to reduce the role to effectively zero.

I am not saying that some of these issues can be worked through, of course they can, but the number of issues can sometimes become too many.

Denis_Jessop
24-09-2009, 04:28 PM
In the meantime, while all these wonderful discussions are taking place, why not abolish the rating fee or reduce it substantially?

The money that is paid to the ACF is an administration fee, not a rating fee. It replaced the annual levy imposed on State Associations. It is the ACF's sole source of funding for all its activities except for the Schools Teams levy which is allotted to the AusJCL for its activities.

DJ

William AS
24-09-2009, 05:20 PM
In the meantime, while all these wonderful discussions are taking place, why not abolish the rating fee or reduce it substantially?
Michael. Very few things in life are free, although chess gets very close :) . There are costs involved in organising most things and chess is no different :rolleyes: . If anyone finds that organised chess is too expensive they always have the option of staying home and playing with themselves.

ER
24-09-2009, 05:41 PM
Michael. Very few things in life are free, although chess gets very close :) . There are costs involved in organising most things and chess is no different :rolleyes: . If anyone finds that organised chess is too expensive they always have the option of staying home and playing with themselves.
You are only saying that because of the Labor Day weekender! :P I wish I were there, missing you all guys and particularly the ladies with their lovely scones, soups, cakes, rolls, sandwiches etc.: :clap: ) I am in love with all of them (the ladies not only the yummy stuff:) I might do a last minute's dash to make it, but I can't promise. Regards to all! :)

MichaelBaron
24-09-2009, 06:03 PM
Michael. Very few things in life are free, although chess gets very close :) . There are costs involved in organising most things and chess is no different :rolleyes: . If anyone finds that organised chess is too expensive they always have the option of staying home and playing with themselves.

Well I do not mind rating fees going to the clubs....But there is a difference between paying to someone who is providing service to you and paying kind of tax.

By the way thats what many people do- they play on the Internet from home...or play with friends socially. Wouldn't it be nice if they play tournament..i can think of several master level players who have been doing so!

Basil
24-09-2009, 06:40 PM
i can think of several master level players who have been doing so!
Just to be clear - you can think of several master level players who would otherwise play in tournaments but they object to ratings fees?

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 08:25 PM
Well I do not mind rating fees going to the clubs....But there is a difference between paying to someone who is providing service to you and paying kind of tax.It is the ACF providing the rating service not your club.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 08:33 PM
Actually, I do remember last time I was on the ACF what we did at one meeting - took 8 of us about 2 hours to work out the countback system for Australian Junior Championships (which then a couple of years later reverted back, and then changed again, and then again ... probably something important enough to warrant 16 man-hours a year on).Actually my recollection is that the last time you were on the ACF was during 2004 as the CV Delegate. At one stage whilst you were the delegate at an ACF meeting in April you tried to change a number of the conditions for the Australian Junior and ASTC events.

When asked if the State Junior Leagues (ACTJCL, NSWJCL, SAJCL) were aware of this you responded in the affirmative and a number of motions were passed that supported your changes.
It was discovered in the following 24 hours that the state junior leagues were in fact unaware of your proposed changes and all the motions were then recisinded.

For the record your last foray into the ACF was when you nominated for the ACF Presidency that was to be decided at the 2005 National Conference at Mt. Buller. You did not attend the conference and Denis Jessop defeated you in the ballot 22-0.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:00 PM
Is there any truth to the rumour that MCC will bloc vote in favour of Cordover and in return that CV HQ will move to the MCC.

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 09:08 PM
Is there any truth to the rumour that MCC will bloc vote in favour of Cordover and in return that CV HQ will move to the MCC.

There is truth that the MCC will bloc vote.

Who we will vote for has not been decided yet. We have a committee meeting on the 4th October when the issue is on the agenda.

We will take all issues into account and whoever appears to present the best policies for the MCC will get our votes.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:12 PM
There is truth that the MCC will bloc vote.

Who we will vote for has not been decided yet. We have a committee meeting on the 4th October when the issue is on the agenda.

We will take all issues into account and whoever appears to present the best policies for the MCC will get our votes.One would assume that as an employee of Cordover's and having a clear conflict of interest that you will not be taking any part in that discussion or vote at that committee meeting.

Mischa
24-09-2009, 09:23 PM
Bill I know you are honest and forthright but I have said it before and I will repeat...Carl is one of the most honest and straight dealing people I know.
I do not think there is anyone here inviolved in the CV leadership issue that is free of COI

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 09:25 PM
One would assume that as an employee of Cordover's and having a clear conflict of interest that you will not be taking any part in that discussion or vote at that committee meeting.

One would also assume that an ACF delegate and NSW state official wouldn't be spreading rumours about the coming election in CV which have no basis in fact.

Don't worry, I'll stay clean here....can you reciprocate;)

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:29 PM
One would also assume that an ACF delegate and NSW state official wouldn't be spreading rumours about the coming election in CV which have no basis in fact.I am not an ACF delegate, I am the ACF Deputy President.

However I am not posting here in any official capacity, just as a poster.

Before claiming otherwise I suggest you check out this sites policy on the matter.

The site has a responsibility for posts policy to make it possible to determine when those posters who also hold formal positions in the chess community are posting on behalf of their organisations. Comments that contravene this policy (ie that accuse posters of posting on behalf of organisations when they are not, and vice versa) may be moderated.


Don't worry, I'll stay clean here....can you reciprocate;)I do not a vote that can impact how a VIC club votes hence I have no COI.

As for your staying clean, a simple yes/no to my previous question re your COI was inorder.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:32 PM
... wouldn't be spreading rumours about the coming election in CV which have no basis in fact.In this case I expect you to be taking your employer to task for his spreading of rumours in his post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=254659&postcount=1).

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 09:39 PM
I am not an ACF delegate, I am the ACF Deputy President.

However I am not posting here in any official capacity, just as a poster.

Before claiming otherwise I suggest you check out this sites policy on the matter.

I'm sorry to have misconstrued your 'interests'.

And sorry for not recognising the board of the ACF....I'm still English by affiliation.

I am also posting as a poster, but still the 'hats' we wear loom behind our posts.

I can post nothing about this election on this site without people thinking about my role in chesskids.....likewise, I have trouble thinking of yourself as a mere poster. Of course, whatever hat you are posting under, I still would expect better of such a high ranking chess official than to muck rake in an election which has nothing to do with him.

As I said, my role in the MCC vote will be by the book, now why don't you stop smearing the MCC whatever hat you're wearing, and rise above it all:)

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 09:44 PM
In this case I expect you to be taking your employer to task for his spreading of rumours in his post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=254659&postcount=1).

The difference is I know your last statement had no basis in fact being on the committee of the MCC....David's statement in the post you link to I can't refute, though you are right that he, like you or anyone else shouldn't be spreading rumours that can't be backed up.

Grant Szuveges
24-09-2009, 09:47 PM
Is there any truth to the rumour that MCC will bloc vote in favour of Cordover and in return that CV HQ will move to the MCC.

As Carl just said, the MCC will vote as a bloc.

As Carl also said, the MCC has not decided who it will vote for. But I can tell you (as Carl also said) that the MCC will vote for whoever serves the interests of the MCC best. Ive already mentioned this earlier on the CV Financial Statements thread. We still havnt had any confirmation as to who (if anyone) is running against Cordover - something I also mentioned in that thread.

I can also state that there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that we will vote for Cordover in return for the CV HQ. I dont know who you heard this rumour from, but this is the first time Ive heard it.

As for Carl voting/having input at our committee meeting on this topic, I am more than happy to hear his opinion because he is a valued committee member and (like every other MCC committee member) is entitled to vote on any issue the MCC committee votes on. Having said that, he doesnt have to vote on anything he doesnt want to vote on or anything he feels uncomfortable voting on. But the choice is his. He has been entrusted by MCCs members to act in their interests, so his input is valued and equal with that of any other MCC committee member.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:48 PM
can post nothing about this election on this site without people thinking about my role in chesskids.....likewise, I have trouble thinking of yourself as a mere poster. Of course, whatever hat you are posting under, I still would expect better of such a high ranking chess official than to muck rake in an election which has nothing to do with him.I am not muck raking, I am asking questions based on my previous dealings with your employee regarding chess administration at a national level.

As I said, my role in the MCC vote will be by the book, now why don't you stop smearing the MCC whatever hat you're wearing, and rise above it all:)Who is smearing the MCC, I asked about your COI in any decision by the MCC Committee on how it votes regarding supporting your employer in his quest to get elected CV President.

I note you still havent given a yes/no answer to it.

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 09:56 PM
Who is smearing the MCC, I asked about your COI in any decision by the MCC Committee on how it votes regarding supporting your employer in his quest to get elected CV President.

I note you still havent given a yes/no answer to it.

The MCC has made no decision as has been said no end of times. I haven't given an nnswer because there is no answer to give.

Spreading rumours about deals and voting behaviour are smears and muck raking in any campaign. The MCC WILL vote as a bloc, but even we don't know who we'll vote for so your speculations as to the future actions of the MCC aren't appreciated, especially when they're based on fictitios nonsense.

How about this deal? I don't stick my nose into NSW state politics and you do the same for Vic?

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 09:57 PM
The difference is I know your last statement had no basis in fact being on the committee of the MCC....David's statement in the post you link to I can't refute, though you are right that he, like you or anyone else shouldn't be spreading rumours that can't be backed up.So you claim my rumour has no basis in fact.
The fact is that just because you cannot refute David's claim in the post I linked to does not make David's claim a fact.

However just like David's rumour, I gave anyone the opportunity to respond and squash my question. Your response however was not complete.

So let me break the question down for you.

In respect of my question you responded that the MCC will indeed block vote but that it has not yet decided to whom that bloc vote will be directed.

That leaves the second part of my question unanswered, so i will state it as a separate question.

Has Cordover to your knowledge raised the issue with any members of the MCC committee either individually or as a group or subgroup of moving the CV HQ to the MCC if he is elected CV President?

Carl Gorka
24-09-2009, 10:03 PM
So you claim my rumour has no basis in fact.
The fact is that just because you cannot refute David's claim in the post I linked to does not make David's claim a fact.

However just like David's rumour, I gave anyone the opportunity to respond and squash my question. Your response however was not complete.

So let me break the question down for you.

In respect of my question you responded that the MCC will indeed block vote but that it has not yet decided to whom that bloc vote will be directed.

That leaves the second part of my question unanswered, so i will state it as a separate question.

Has Cordover to your knowledge raised the issue with any members of the MCC committee either individually or as a group or subgroup of moving the CV HQ to the MCC if he is elected CV President?


hmmm, I thought I had answered all this:hmm:

ok, to my knowledge moving CV to MCC has not been raised as an issue by Cordover.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 10:10 PM
hmmm, I thought I had answered all this:hmm:

ok, to my knowledge moving CV to MCC has not been raised as an issue by Cordover.Thank you.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 10:20 PM
As Carl just said, the MCC will vote as a bloc.

As Carl also said, the MCC has not decided who it will vote for. But I can tell you (as Carl also said) that the MCC will vote for whoever serves the interests of the MCC best. Ive already mentioned this earlier on the CV Financial Statements thread. We still havnt had any confirmation as to who (if anyone) is running against Cordover - something I also mentioned in that thread.

I can also state that there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that we will vote for Cordover in return for the CV HQ. I dont know who you heard this rumour from, but this is the first time Ive heard it.Thank you for your response.

As for Carl voting/having input at our committee meeting on this topic, I am more than happy to hear his opinion because he is a valued committee member and (like every other MCC committee member) is entitled to vote on any issue the MCC committee votes on. Having said that, he doesnt have to vote on anything he doesnt want to vote on or anything he feels uncomfortable voting on. But the choice is his. He has been entrusted by MCCs members to act in their interests, so his input is valued and equal with that of any other MCC committee member.It does not matter if he is a valued committee member or not, as an employee of Cordover's he has a clear COI and as such should not be taking any part in the discussion or the vote.

Grant Szuveges
24-09-2009, 11:14 PM
Hi Bill

Actually I dont agree with you. You have said that Carl "should" not be taking part in discussions on this issue or voting on it.

In my opinion, as the MCC president, the only thing that Carl "should" be doing is acting in the best interests of the MCC.

If Carl thinks that it is in the MCCs best interests that he doesnt take part, then that is what he should do. If he thinks that his taking part is in the MCCs best interests, then he should do that.

The members of the MCC have entrusted Carl to make decisions on behalf of them - therefore when he wears his MCC hat, it is his duty to act in their interests. When wearing his MCC hat, his only allegence is to the MCC.

As for the COI, that only becomes an issue if the MCC sees it as an issue. This really is an MCC matter and should be kept inhouse - not discussed on a public forum with non-MCC members. The only reason I have even responded to this thread is to comment on rumours about my club and to support my vice president (Carl Gorka).

What I will say though about COIs, is that people could probably find a conflict of interest with just about anybody. Carl works for Cordover and thus people see this as a conflict of interest. But our secretary Malcolm Pyke works for Chess Ideas - Cordovers main business rival. Does that mean that Malcolm also has a COI? Over ten years ago I had stints working for both companies. I also worked for myself teaching kids in schools - does that mean I have a COI?

I find it a bit strange that the MCC has even been mentioned in this thread, because the CV election is not a high priority for the MCC. We (the MCC) have a long list of things to do which are much more important to our club than worrying about a CV election. I understand that the CV election is important to some people, but it is simply not a major priority for our club. It is over 2 months away in any case. We (the MCC committee) will discuss it, but not ahead of things which are more of a priority such as the Cup Weekender, maintenance issues, fundraising issues, tournaments and potential sponsorship deals.

As for my personal position, I couldnt care less who runs CV and I never have cared. Im happy to work with whoever CV consists of. Id just like to get on with my job of running the Melbourne Chess Club to the best of my ability and that of the committee around me for our 135 members. So far we have been fairly successful in this regard, but we still have a long way to go before we can boast about long-term sustainable success for the MCC - which is what our goal is and always has been.

SHump
24-09-2009, 11:19 PM
I do not think there is anyone here inviolved in the CV leadership issue that is free of COI

Let me state it here that I am a nominated CV delegate of my club for the CV AGM. Apart from putting my club's interests first at the AGM, as I would suppose each delegate will be doing, I would think I would have the least conflict of interest of all if not most chatters here (I am a recent import to Vic, and just getting back to OTB chess this year). As to deciding who to vote for at the AGM, my approach is two simple steps:

a) wait to see who nominates on the day (just because there is a thread here with a similar title doesn't in my book mean it will happen like that). I have no idea of what correspondence concerning nominations has already passed to the chairman of the AGM, but I would suspect many would only nominate when the chairman, at the AGM, asks for nominations.

b) discuss with my colleagues and fellow delegates as to the merits of each candidate.

As to discussing this at a club committee meeting, that would be OK as far as it goes -- if you can predict who will nominate then they may have something to discuss. But a lot of supposition would be the order of the day I am guessing.

If there was some way of getting all of the candidates to pre-publish their manifesto/platform/their record/vision/aims or whatever you choose to call it, in advance of the AGM, then it would be helpful for all I would suspect in making an informed decision.

However, I don't think CC or the other forum is the right place for this. On here, the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, which is good if you have a lot of oil and you are prepared to apply it often and liberally. The chat sites are good for all to comment about the topic, items near to the topic, and stuff far removed from the topic all on the same page!!

But as far as trying to convince me that someone has a better approach than someone else when it comes to running a chess group/administration, once a candidate has published their manifesto, I personally would prefer the candidate to say less than more. Sure, some enthusiasm for the job would be welcome, and making things happen behind the scenes is also good (and yes, transparency and accountability have to be there as well). Would it be too much to ask for pleasant personal attributes as well? But each to their own yardstick on this.

After all we are talking about incorporated associations for chess players and not a US Presidential styled campaign. Sigh, what I have written above is something perhaps self-evident to the majority of both the posters and the many people that read but do not post on here (the silent majority). If my reaction to what has been posted so far on this and other threads regarding the CV elections is shared by the silent majority, then maybe I should also nominate for the CV President job. At least there may be like minds then working together.

But more importantly, I think most posters are taking themselves and their targets way too seriously and need to lighten up. I have come back to OTB chess for enjoyment and the social interaction. Neither of these attributes seem to be in abundance in the related discussions so far.

Bill Gletsos
24-09-2009, 11:21 PM
Actually I dont agree with you.Then it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

Grant Szuveges
24-09-2009, 11:24 PM
Then it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

Cheers Bill,

Im ok with that.

Grant Szuveges
24-09-2009, 11:34 PM
Let me state it here that I am a nominated CV delegate of my club for the CV AGM. Apart from putting my club's interests first at the AGM, as I would suppose each delegate will be doing, I would think I would have the least conflict of interest of all if not most chatters here (I am a recent import to Vic, and just getting back to OTB chess this year). As to deciding who to vote for at the AGM, my approach is two simple steps:

a) wait to see who nominates on the day (just because there is a thread here with a similar title doesn't in my book mean it will happen like that). I have no idea of what correspondence concerning nominations has already passed to the chairman of the AGM, but I would suspect many would only nominate when the chairman, at the AGM, asks for nominations.

b) discuss with my colleagues and fellow delegates as to the merits of each candidate.

As to discussing this at a club committee meeting, that would be OK as far as it goes -- if you can predict who will nominate then they may have something to discuss. But a lot of supposition would be the order of the day I am guessing.

If there was some way of getting all of the candidates to pre-publish their manifesto/platform/their record/vision/aims or whatever you choose to call it, in advance of the AGM, then it would be helpful for all I would suspect in making an informed decision.

However, I don't think CC or the other forum is the right place for this. On here, the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, which is good if you have a lot of oil and you are prepared to apply it often and liberally. The chat sites are good for all to comment about the topic, items near to the topic, and stuff far removed from the topic all on the same page!!

But as far as trying to convince me that someone has a better approach than someone else when it comes to running a chess group/administration, once a candidate has published their manifesto, I personally would prefer the candidate to say less than more. Sure, some enthusiasm for the job would be welcome, and making things happen behind the scenes is also good (and yes, transparency and accountability have to be there as well). Would it be too much to ask for pleasant personal attributes as well? But each to their own yardstick on this.

After all we are talking about incorporated associations for chess players and not a US Presidential styled campaign. Sigh, what I have written above is something perhaps self-evident to the majority of both the posters and the many people that read but do not post on here (the silent majority). If my reaction to what has been posted so far on this and other threads regarding the CV elections is shared by the silent majority, then maybe I should also nominate for the CV President job. At least there may be like minds then working together.

But more importantly, I think most posters are taking themselves and their targets way too seriously and need to lighten up. I have come back to OTB chess for enjoyment and the social interaction. Neither of these attributes seem to be in abundance in the related discussions so far.

Wonderful post SHump!!! Probably the most sensible post Ive ever read on a chess forum! I agree with you 1000%!

Davidflude
24-09-2009, 11:43 PM
There is truth that the MCC will bloc vote.

Who we will vote for has not been decided yet. We have a committee meeting on the 4th October when the issue is on the agenda.

We will take all issues into account and whoever appears to present the best policies for the MCC will get our votes.

How do you block vote when there is a secret ballot? Also candidates only have to be announced at the start of the meeting. So how do you know in advance who to vote for. Possibly one slate of candidates will wear rosettes.

Whatever the result of the election Box Hill is very keen to run the Victorian Junior and Victorian Open. In view of the generous support our members have given Melbourne Chess Club recently I suggest that it would be appropriate for you to support us.

ChessGuru
25-09-2009, 12:04 AM
If there was some way of getting all of the candidates to pre-publish their manifesto/platform/their record/vision/aims or whatever you choose to call it, in advance of the AGM, then it would be helpful for all I would suspect in making an informed decision.
I cannot speak for other candidates - but I hope that my intentions/style/manifesto becomes clear once you read the posts on my blog (http://www.cordover.com.au) on a regular basis.

Phil Bourke
25-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Let me state it here that I am a nominated CV delegate of my club for the CV AGM. Apart from putting my club's interests first at the AGM, as I would suppose each delegate will be doing, I would think I would have the least conflict of interest of all if not most chatters here (I am a recent import to Vic, and just getting back to OTB chess this year). As to deciding who to vote for at the AGM, my approach is two simple steps:

a) wait to see who nominates on the day (just because there is a thread here with a similar title doesn't in my book mean it will happen like that). I have no idea of what correspondence concerning nominations has already passed to the chairman of the AGM, but I would suspect many would only nominate when the chairman, at the AGM, asks for nominations.

b) discuss with my colleagues and fellow delegates as to the merits of each candidate.

As to discussing this at a club committee meeting, that would be OK as far as it goes -- if you can predict who will nominate then they may have something to discuss. But a lot of supposition would be the order of the day I am guessing.

If there was some way of getting all of the candidates to pre-publish their manifesto/platform/their record/vision/aims or whatever you choose to call it, in advance of the AGM, then it would be helpful for all I would suspect in making an informed decision.

However, I don't think CC or the other forum is the right place for this. On here, the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, which is good if you have a lot of oil and you are prepared to apply it often and liberally. The chat sites are good for all to comment about the topic, items near to the topic, and stuff far removed from the topic all on the same page!!

But as far as trying to convince me that someone has a better approach than someone else when it comes to running a chess group/administration, once a candidate has published their manifesto, I personally would prefer the candidate to say less than more. Sure, some enthusiasm for the job would be welcome, and making things happen behind the scenes is also good (and yes, transparency and accountability have to be there as well). Would it be too much to ask for pleasant personal attributes as well? But each to their own yardstick on this.

After all we are talking about incorporated associations for chess players and not a US Presidential styled campaign. Sigh, what I have written above is something perhaps self-evident to the majority of both the posters and the many people that read but do not post on here (the silent majority). If my reaction to what has been posted so far on this and other threads regarding the CV elections is shared by the silent majority, then maybe I should also nominate for the CV President job. At least there may be like minds then working together.

But more importantly, I think most posters are taking themselves and their targets way too seriously and need to lighten up. I have come back to OTB chess for enjoyment and the social interaction. Neither of these attributes seem to be in abundance in the related discussions so far.
IMHO, this is the best post in the whole thread, forget the ratings, forget the politics, get back to enjoying the game and people of similar passion.

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2009, 02:52 AM
How do you block vote when there is a secret ballot?

That can depend on exactly how the secret ballot is conducted. When it is conducted by people going to a ballot box one by one it is impossible (except by pre-organisation and trust). When it is conducted by people sitting around filling out papers and handing them in, then a common rort around the "secret vote" is for fellow bloc members adjacent to each other to show each other their voting slips.


What I will say though about COIs, is that people could probably find a conflict of interest with just about anybody. Carl works for Cordover and thus people see this as a conflict of interest. But our secretary Malcolm Pyke works for Chess Ideas - Cordovers main business rival. Does that mean that Malcolm also has a COI?

I would say that he does too, although I do have a theoretical COI in saying that. :lol:


Over ten years ago I had stints working for both companies. I also worked for myself teaching kids in schools - does that mean I have a COI?

The typical test is that you have a COI if a decision going one way or the other potentially benefits you or someone very close to you (family member, partner, close friend etc). A decision affecting a former associate or employer is not necessarily COI, since you don't actually benefit. In some situations, though, people are required to declare former links with affected companies. For instance some medical journals require researchers to declare any company that might be affected by their research that they have worked for in the last 5 years.

There are some matters on which everyone has a COI and therefore it is pointless to ask people to abstain. For instance everyone has a COI on the levels of ratings fees, but only those who had a much stronger COI than the average player would need to consider their COI in deciding whether to vote on the matter.

Spiny Norman
25-09-2009, 05:21 AM
In my opinion, Carl does indeed have a COI, because he derives income from his relationship with David. Its not a big deal. If MCC wants to be certain that Carl is acting in the best interests of MCC in respect of deliberations about David's candidacy, the one way to be sure of this is for Carl to not be involved in or present at those deliberations.

This is no reflection on anyone's personal integrity. Rather, it is about integrity of process, and it is about being seen to have done the right thing (not just doing the right thing because you're a good bloke and people can take you on trust).

A simple question can highlight the concern. If I was an MCC member and I asked "How do we know for sure whose interests Carl is serving when discussing MCC matters relating to David?" ... the answer is: If Carl is involved in or present at those discussions, I cannot be sure, no matter how much I may think well of Carl (and I do happen to think very well of him).

Here's an example template of a policy for handling COI:
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Sports_Funding/resources_for_governing_bodies/ModelConflictofInterestPolicy_Mar04.doc

I note with interest that they go for the "you must disclose; you cannot vote" model but do not require the person with the COI to leave the board room. My opinion is that this does not go far enough, however at least there is visible accountability and that's better than "head in the sand".

Spiny Norman
25-09-2009, 05:52 AM
... MCC will vote as a bloc.
Quite appropriate. I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. I am sure that the Croydon delegates will do the same (not that we're much of a bloc given that there's just 2 of us).


... the MCC will vote for whoever serves the interests of the MCC best.
Another factor that I would hope is embedded in this: clubs ought to consider the interests of the wider VIC chess community, not just their own interests.

I believe that the two are linked. If the wider VIC chess community suffers or prospers, it is very likely that individual clubs will also suffer or prosper with them. I assume that this is part of your considerations. It certainly is for Croydon. We intend to consider overall impact on all chess clubs and players of our decisions, not just the impact on our own club and our own players. Sometimes balance is a good outcome.

Basil
25-09-2009, 09:56 AM
I believe COI was one of the reasons cited by Graeme G (outgoing ACF president - did not stand for reelection), when he was establishing his enterprise on the Gold Coast.

Watto
25-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Quite appropriate. I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. I am sure that the Croydon delegates will do the same (not that we're much of a bloc given that there's just 2 of us).

I must admit I don’t understand why bloc voting is considered so appropriate. If you only have one or two delegates, it should be easy enough to reach a happy consensus but for the bigger clubs I see more of a problem. Take the MCC for instance. They would have 4 to 5 delegates (maybe more, I don’t know the numbers) representing over 130 members. The membership will almost certainly be split over the contentious issue of who to vote in as CV president this year and I would have thought it’s likely the delegates would be split as well. I don’t like the idea of votes being forced on delegates if a significant number of members are split. What's wrong with a conscience vote? It just seems more honest and representative to me.

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2009, 03:41 PM
They would have 4 to 5 delegates (maybe more, I don’t know the numbers) representing over 130 members.Clubs with 81 or more members have 5 delegates.

Spiny Norman
25-09-2009, 04:03 PM
I must admit I don’t understand why bloc voting is considered so appropriate. If you only have one or two delegates, it should be easy enough to reach a happy consensus but for the bigger clubs I see more of a problem. Take the MCC for instance. They would have 4 to 5 delegates (maybe more, I don’t know the numbers) representing over 130 members. The membership will almost certainly be split over the contentious issue of who to vote in as CV president this year and I would have thought it’s likely the delegates would be split as well. I don’t like the idea of votes being forced on delegates if a significant number of members are split. What's wrong with a conscience vote? It just seems more honest and representative to me.
Its certainly possible to look at it that way. In many spheres there arguably ought to be more conscience votes allowed. But its also possible to look at it like this: if the Committee (who have been elected by the club to govern it between AGMs) decide by majority vote to commit all the club's voting resource at a CV AGM to vote in a certain way, then that seems to me to be just as democratic, just in a different way.

Watto
25-09-2009, 04:35 PM
Its certainly possible to look at it that way. In many spheres there arguably ought to be more conscience votes allowed. But its also possible to look at it like this: if the Committee (who have been elected by the club to govern it between AGMs) decide by majority vote to commit all the club's voting resource at a CV AGM to vote in a certain way, then that seems to me to be just as democratic, just in a different way.
Yes, agreed.
I feel that a conscience vote is just as appropriate (obviously I favour it for this particular issue), and no one should see it as very surprising if clubs choose to go down that path.

Carl Gorka
25-09-2009, 04:46 PM
Whatever the result of the election Box Hill is very keen to run the Victorian Junior and Victorian Open. In view of the generous support our members have given Melbourne Chess Club recently I suggest that it would be appropriate for you to support us.

I think you've done a pretty good job at Box Hill at running CV events over the past couple of years:clap:

I have no problems with BHCC running these events again, but the MCC committee can hardly do anything to help when it comes down to bids being decided upon by CV.

Saying that, I don't know if you'll have any competition again so you'll probably just get the events unopposed.

Carl Gorka
25-09-2009, 04:48 PM
Yes, agreed.
I feel that a conscience vote is just as appropriate (obviously I favour it for this particular issue), and no one should see it as very surprising if clubs choose to go down that path.

I don't think conscience votes are appropriate as some of us [apparently] don't have consciences;) :lol:

Denis_Jessop
25-09-2009, 09:14 PM
As a former Secretary and committee member of the VCA (as it then was) I am following this debate with some interest. But I am puzzled about the apparent intention of club delegates, in voting for CV office bearers, to vote in the best interests of their club. It seems to me to be abundantly clear that their primary duty is to vote in the best interests of CV, that is, chess in Victoria, not in their club's interests. Perhaps this is the key to the alleged unhappy state of affairs in Victorian chess.

DJ

ER
25-09-2009, 10:43 PM
As a former Secretary and committee member of the VCA (as it then was)

Hey Denis, you started in the right place, that's why you reached so high! :) If Bill had started in Victoria he would have been FIDE pres by now! :P


I am following this debate with some interest. But I am puzzled about the apparent intention of club delegates, in voting for CV office bearers, to vote in the best interests of their club.

I am surprised that having lived here and belonged in VCA officialdom, you ignore the fact that Club pride is the name of the game in Victoria! :)


It seems to me to be abundantly clear that their primary duty is to vote in the best interests of CV, that is, chess in Victoria, not in their club's interests.

In (one of) my club's reality all of the above are strongly connected! :P


Perhaps this is the key to the alleged unhappy state of affairs in Victorian chess.

Oh no it's only baseless allegations, in reality we are a very happy lot down here! :)

Basil
25-09-2009, 11:55 PM
I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree on this point. I believe this is quite fundamental.
Yes we can agree to disagree, but in my disagreement with you, I feel compelled to add that IMO you are dangerous to the harmony and interests of chess in Australia, in at least an administration capacity. Whether that danger is formed within my earlier summation of your 'learning on the job' or that the danger is in your commercial hard-wiring, I don' t know. I strongly suspect the latter.


There is a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE. The ACF runs a ratings system, an Australian Chess Championships, a Grand Prix, etc etc.... these are PRIVILEDGES which come with responsibilities and with thanks to the players who support them.
Sure there is a difference between a right and a privilege, but again I suggest you are using your well honed 'Popular Public Spruiking Speaking Techniques 101 as a preface to supporting an ensuing nonsense/ non seqitur where the conclusion has no right to be attached to the premise.

By this I mean that yes, as you say there is a difference between a right and privilege, and privileges have to be earned. One might as well spruik that parenting is a privilege and not a right - therefore the right to name your child has to be earned. And so with your ...


The ACF system and everything else IS "up for grabs" because the ACF has no "RIGHTS" - they must earn and continue to earn every moment of every day the priviledge to provide ratings for chess players in Australia.
Twaddle. The ACF has a constitutional mandate to run a national ratings system. You and I don't. We can run a system for the TAB, our family and even the local knocking shop if we want to, but under all circumstances your statement that the ACF system is 'up for grabs' is unmitigated, full-blown, fiddling dribble.


Having said that I will answer your question. I have no intention of usurping my future position on CV to undermine the ACF rating system. I will go direct to the ACF to make the change.I think that's a wise move. In both our estimations, a contrary course would no doubt result in on the spot failure of your candidacy. I still note that you believe it is a good idea, nonetheless.

Denis_Jessop
25-09-2009, 11:56 PM
Hello JAK

My point was really a serious one. Moreover the situation in Victoria when I was there was rather different from that now existing as I remember the 1960s and as I gather things to be now. There was then a pride in one's club but it was expressed primarily by a vibrant inter-club competition with (if I remember correctly) A, A reserve, B, C and C reserve Grades with clubs from the Dandenongs to St Albans and many places between competing, some of them in several grades.* I don't recall any real club rivalry in relation to the VCA. I'm not questioning the existence or validity of club pride but when it comes to choosing the office bearers for a State or national body, it seems obvious that, for the body to be effective, its best interests should be the determining factor in the choice of personnel.

DJ

* I recall Dandenongs, Box Hill, Camberwell, Northcote, St Kilda, Essendon, St Albans, Venta, MCC, Melbourne Uni., Vic. Railways Institute, Pentridge Gaol and the Blind Society and there were probably some more. I played for Uni and then St Kilda and against teams from all the others, except, perhaps MCC.

ER
26-09-2009, 01:42 AM
Hi Denis and (once again) thanks for the invaluable information provided by your posts!
I always take the information you provide very seriously as I am very interested in what you have to say not only from a(n?) historical, but also from an administrational point of view.
Sometimes I (not always successfully) resort to some humour (efforts supported in my previous post by laughing faces in the end of every paragraph) just as a counterpountal attempt to lighten up the situation! :)

Garvinator
26-09-2009, 02:25 AM
Sometimes I (not always successfully) resort to some humour (efforts supported in my previous post by laughing faces in the end of every paragraph) just as a counterpountal attempt to lighten up the situation! :)I would suggest that this is probably not the right thread to be trying to resort to humour to lighten up the situation, especially with some of the matters being discussed.

ER
26-09-2009, 07:45 AM
:lol:

ChessGuru
26-09-2009, 09:56 AM
I would suggest that this is probably not the right thread to be trying to resort to humour to lighten up the situation, especially with some of the matters being discussed.

Too true. Because chess politics is just so critical to the ultimate well being of the entire planet. These discussions seriously effect peoples LIVES you know...650 rated players in Victoria could be... um, could be.... well, um, changed? No, perhaps not changed....

Anyway, I think you raise a good point - perhaps Bill and Denis could implement a "no smiling or laughing" policy at the ACF level.

ChessGuru
26-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Twaddle. The ACF has a constitutional mandate to run a national ratings system. You and I don't. We can run a system for the TAB, our family and even the local knocking shop if we want to, but under all circumstances your statement that the ACF system is 'up for grabs' is unmitigated, full-blown, fiddling dribble.


Yes, a self-imposed constitutional mandate. They are as important as they say they are.

The ACF can write into their constitution that they have the sole right to run the AFL Grand Final. Big deal. I can start an association which puts into their constitution Supreme Executive Power over the Universe. It's just an illusion - they are only important while they say they are and others believe they are; if the ACF doesn't perform to the expectations of the States then states should just drop them and find someone else to provide the same services.

So equally any other body (commercial, incorporation, club, you or I) have just as much right to run a national ratings system. Just write it into your constitution the same way the ACF did.

See, the problem is the ACF believes their own constitution - so they believe they have the RIGHTS to do all the things they do (and so don't have to EARN those rights on an ongoing daily basis).

Fundamentalists.

Basil
26-09-2009, 11:14 AM
Yes, a self-imposed constitutional mandate.
:wall: :wall::wall: :wall: :wall::wall:
The ACF is the prevailing FIDE member entity in Australia. The ACF, with that authority upstream, coupled with the members downstream enjoys that mandate, the only mandate and the whole mandate.

With the mandate, the ACF creates its own Constitution and empowers itself (give or take a few chicken and egg manoeuvres). So yes, 'self-imposed' but with authority, the whole authority and nothing but the authority.

Your parallel talk of the ACF self-imposing AFL mandates is twaddle.
Your talk of ACF ratings system being 'up for grabs' is twaddle.

To make any sense of your position, Chess Kids will have to roll the ACF both upstream and downstream - not as you seem to believe, have a bit of commercial argy bargy (not to mention I suspect no small amount of sharp practice) over whose rating system prevails in this country.

Carl Gorka
26-09-2009, 01:15 PM
Hello JAK

My point was really a serious one. Moreover the situation in Victoria when I was there was rather different from that now existing as I remember the 1960s and as I gather things to be now. There was then a pride in one's club but it was expressed primarily by a vibrant inter-club competition with (if I remember correctly) A, A reserve, B, C and C reserve Grades with clubs from the Dandenongs to St Albans and many places between competing, some of them in several grades.* I don't recall any real club rivalry in relation to the VCA. I'm not questioning the existence or validity of club pride but when it comes to choosing the office bearers for a State or national body, it seems obvious that, for the body to be effective, its best interests should be the determining factor in the choice of personnel.

DJ

* I recall Dandenongs, Box Hill, Camberwell, Northcote, St Kilda, Essendon, St Albans, Venta, MCC, Melbourne Uni., Vic. Railways Institute, Pentridge Gaol and the Blind Society and there were probably some more. I played for Uni and then St Kilda and against teams from all the others, except, perhaps MCC.


Good point. The reintroduction of a workable interclub event has been a high priority for the current CV admin. I've spoken to Leonid about it a number of times, and the President's meeting that happened earlier in the year had that issue on its agenda.

Coming from the UK with a vibrant club and team tournament scene, I feel strongly about the importance of team events, and offered a typical English local league blueprint as a starting point for reintroducing interclub here (another model was also suggested by Peter Caissa). In my opinion, the clubs and the current CV adminsitration are quite excited about interclub, we just need to agree to its correct format, and hopefully see it implemented next year. Then we should see Victorian chess as vibrant as it has been for a number of years, with relations between the clubs being strengthened:)

Denis_Jessop
26-09-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, a self-imposed constitutional mandate. They are as important as they say they are.

The ACF can write into their constitution that they have the sole right to run the AFL Grand Final. Big deal. I can start an association which puts into their constitution Supreme Executive Power over the Universe. It's just an illusion - they are only important while they say they are and others believe they are; if the ACF doesn't perform to the expectations of the States then states should just drop them and find someone else to provide the same services.

So equally any other body (commercial, incorporation, club, you or I) have just as much right to run a national ratings system. Just write it into your constitution the same way the ACF did.

See, the problem is the ACF believes their own constitution - so they believe they have the RIGHTS to do all the things they do (and so don't have to EARN those rights on an ongoing daily basis).

Fundamentalists.

David

The ACF is governed by the provisions of its Constitution including the structure it sets up.

Many people, including you, it seems, in discussing the ACF, fall into the trap of confusing the situation as it is with the situation that they think ought to be.

My view of the current ACF/States constitutional structure is that the ACF is responsible only for national and international matters while the States are responsible for the rest. The former includes national events, such as Australian Championships and the Grand Prix, and the national rating system and anything else that needs to be done at a national level plus relations with FIDE which recognises the ACF as the national federation for Australia . The latter includes virtually everything else thus leaving the States with responsibility for at least 95% of Australian chess.

Whether that should be the case is entirely another matter. The ACF cannot be criticised for acting within its current constitutional limits. Indeed much of the criticism that is made of the ACF in relation to chess administration, especially regarding things like the role of clubs, should be delivered to those who are in fact responsible for that area, that is, the State Associations. There may well be good grounds for changing the current ACF/State structure but this is not practicable at present as the example of the ACF Commission proposal showed.

DJ

Spiny Norman
26-09-2009, 02:07 PM
The reintroduction of a workable interclub event has been a high priority for the current CV admin. I've spoken to Leonid about it a number of times, and the President's meeting that happened earlier in the year had that issue on its agenda.
Developments in this area in the past 12 months have been very welcome indeed. If we can get to the stage where the Interclub dates/matches are scheduled 12-18 months ahead, it will make it easier for clubs to promote Interclub to our members as an integral part of the calendar.

<nostaligia>
I'm just old enough to remember the late 70's and the vibrant Interclub environment back then. I played for Ringwood as a junior, travelling in to the rooms in Elizabeth Street for matches mid-week.
</nostaliga>

antichrist
26-09-2009, 02:14 PM
DJ

* I recall Dandenongs, Box Hill, Camberwell, Northcote, St Kilda, Essendon, St Albans, Venta, MCC, Melbourne Uni., Vic. Railways Institute, Pentridge Gaol and the Blind Society and there were probably some more. I played for Uni and then St Kilda and against teams from all the others, except, perhaps MCC.
__________________

Did you guys go to Pentridge Gaol for their home games? Were there any "event's like occured at the Doberl 10 years ago? Who had the last game with Ronald Ryan and what was the result?

How did the blind play? Large pieces? Could they feel the pieces?

Denis_Jessop
26-09-2009, 04:49 PM
DJ

* I recall Dandenongs, Box Hill, Camberwell, Northcote, St Kilda, Essendon, St Albans, Venta, MCC, Melbourne Uni., Vic. Railways Institute, Pentridge Gaol and the Blind Society and there were probably some more. I played for Uni and then St Kilda and against teams from all the others, except, perhaps MCC.
__________________

Did you guys go to Pentridge Gaol for their home games? Were there any "event's like occured at the Doberl 10 years ago? Who had the last game with Ronald Ryan and what was the result?

How did the blind play? Large pieces? Could they feel the pieces?

We went to Pentridge and were escorted into the recreation room where the match was played. They didn't have any away games :) There was no suggestion of anything untoward happening nor would it have been at all likely as the prisoners would have no doubt been punished. at least one warder was constantly present and i think the players were trusted prisoners. Their only restriction as far as the chess went was that the games had to finish by something like 10.30pm and the prisoners had to resign any unfinished games though that had not been told to us in advance which made sure we did not try the unsporting thing of just messing about until the session expired.

As for the blind players, they used a normal sized board but with special peg-in pieces (basically Staunton with knobs on) so that they were allowed to feel all the pieces to identify them by touch. It was an interesting experience and my opponent was not a bad player.

Both these matches were in C reserve Grade but I can't give any real indication of ratings as this was before ratings were introduced. The standard was not particularly high in that grade. It was my first year in inter-club chess for St Kilda CC. The following year I played B Grade which was about my standard.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
26-09-2009, 04:58 PM
Developments in this area in the past 12 months have been very welcome indeed. If we can get to the stage where the Interclub dates/matches are scheduled 12-18 months ahead, it will make it easier for clubs to promote Interclub to our members as an integral part of the calendar.

<nostaligia>
I'm just old enough to remember the late 70's and the vibrant Interclub environment back then. I played for Ringwood as a junior, travelling in to the rooms in Elizabeth Street for matches mid-week.
</nostaliga>

Some more nostalgia :) For much of my time in Melbourne the matches were on a home-and-away basis involving playing in some interesting premises. Then Eddie Malitis (I'm pretty sure he ran the inter-club) arranged for all matches to be played at a central venue - the South Melbourne Town Hall. After two or three years of that the VCA came to an agreement with MCC for them to be played at the MCC's Elizabeth Street premises. The Victorian Championships (Minor, Major and Championship) were also played there and attracted a quite large entry. This was in the mid to late 1960s.

DJ

Spiny Norman
28-09-2009, 05:37 AM
For David to respond to if he wishes ...

David, I notice that on your blog you float the idea of spending $10,000 per year for a technology officer:


If I were Chess Victoria president I’d immediately create a Technology Office Bearer position…and make it a paid one. There are certain expectations you can have and certain stability which comes with a paid position. I’d hazard a guess at a budget of $10,000 per year.

Can you provide some more information about this? I have some questions:

1. how is the CV budget going to sustain this big increase to its expenditure? (please be specific ... if you intend to raise fees, spell it out ... and please keep in mind that I am passing familiar with CV's finances, having assisted the Treasurer for a number of years and having been an auditor of their accounts)

2. is there a reason why this has to be a paid position? Why can't it be performed by a volunteer or a team of volunteers? e.g. in respect of the CV website, informal offers have been made in the past to assist CV in re-developing their website, which were not taken up unfortunately.

3. have you looked at the Croydon Chess website lately (www.croydonchess.com)? Would it surprise you to learn that this site's development cost was $0 (done by me as a volunteer) and its ongoing running cost, including domain name fees, is less than $100/year?

So why the need to spend $10,000/year on a paid technology officer? I need more information pls.

george
28-09-2009, 09:42 AM
hi all,

I find it interesting that David would run for President VCA.

It would seem to me to be President it is necessary to have the respect of your peers as they are the folks a future president would have to work with;) .

It seems to me David has a successful chess business through ways and means known best to him so respect for his success has been earned - doesnt mean you have to like the success or methods employed to achieve that success but you must acknowledge he has been successful.

So one wonders why with a young family (that would take up a lot of time a chess business ditto) would David AGAIN put his hand up for public office - It takes a considerable amount of nervous energy , strong interpersonal skills a honed friendly relationship with your peers to be successful.

Politics including chess politics is about respect popularity and support - if CV think David has respect popularity and support from other chess professionals/volunteers in Victoria then long may David/Victorian Chess Public prosper and get from each other exactly what they deserve.

Having been president of SACA for a few years in the immediate past and Deputy President before that I think my views on being President of a state body have some validity - anyway it will be interesting to see developments.

MichaelBaron
28-09-2009, 10:15 AM
For David to respond to if he wishes ...

David, I notice that on your blog you float the idea of spending $10,000 per year for a technology officer:



Can you provide some more information about this? I have some questions:

1. how is the CV budget going to sustain this big increase to its expenditure? (please be specific ... if you intend to raise fees, spell it out ... and please keep in mind that I am passing familiar with CV's finances, having assisted the Treasurer for a number of years and having been an auditor of their accounts)

2. is there a reason why this has to be a paid position? Why can't it be performed by a volunteer or a team of volunteers? e.g. in respect of the CV website, informal offers have been made in the past to assist CV in re-developing their website, which were not taken up unfortunately.

3. have you looked at the Croydon Chess website lately (www.croydonchess.com)? Would it surprise you to learn that this site's development cost was $0 (done by me as a volunteer) and its ongoing running cost, including domain name fees, is less than $100/year?

So why the need to spend $10,000/year on a paid technology officer? I need more information pls.

In case of Technology Officer - I agree with Snail King. I do not see any pressing needs for an IT person. However, in general i think its good if CV (when it is finally able to generate some profits) starts paying its officers. This is a way of attracting professionals to get involved and to accept responsibility for their work!

ER
28-09-2009, 10:19 AM
Having been president of SACA for a few years in the immediate past

and doing a tremendous job out of it let me add! :clap: :clap: :clap:

SHump
28-09-2009, 10:50 AM
Politics including chess politics is about respect popularity and support - if CV think David has respect popularity and support from other chess professionals/volunteers in Victoria then long may David/Victorian Chess Public prosper and get from each other exactly what they deserve.


I think George is onto something here. I wouldn't think it useful for Vic Chess if CV, as an organisation, is any of the following: not respected; ignored; non-inclusive; non-cooperative; opaque; unapproachable.

It would also be a shame if there is only one candidate for each position, with the proviso that if there is only one candidate, I would think it would be OK for that candidate to be the incumbent - assuming the role has been well served by that person in the previous period. It would be a shame because a one horse race gives no diversity at all or a chance for an opinionated decision. Well, I just think it is self-evident really...

Note that I am not inferring one way or another about the quality of potential candidates or of the incumbents in this discussion. But certainly the RPS (respect popularity and support) trifecta sounds a winner to me.

ChessGuru
28-09-2009, 07:11 PM
1. how is the CV budget going to sustain this big increase to its expenditure? (please be specific ... if you intend to raise fees, spell it out ... and please keep in mind that I am passing familiar with CV's finances, having assisted the Treasurer for a number of years and having been an auditor of their accounts)

CV needs revenue sources from OUTSIDE chess players pockets. I'm not talking about sponsorships or philanthropy. I am talking about grants.

There are grants out there to fund just about ANYTHING. The reason that CV (and ACF) doesn't get much (um, nothing) in the way of grant funding is that we go out and ask for money -- if someone is kind and generous (eg. Lexus of Blackburn) then we'll get some money. THEN once we have the money we try to think what we're going to do with it (eg. should we increase Vic Champs prizes, hire a venue, put on a big final round? etc).

This is wrong.

Once you have a PLAN and an OUTCOME then finding the money is always the easy part. You have to prove to the grant giver a few things of course (sustainability, viability, etc) - which may mean a small initial investment before getting funding - but in general I'd say we'd cover this expense with grant funding.


2. is there a reason why this has to be a paid position? Why can't it be performed by a volunteer or a team of volunteers? e.g. in respect of the CV website, informal offers have been made in the past to assist CV in re-developing their website, which were not taken up unfortunately.

There are certain things (quality, timeliness) that you can expect of a paid position which require significant cultural change before we can expect the same of volunteers (if ever). The current site is maintained by a volunteer; the newsletter is written by a volunteer etc etc... I think that technology is just too important -


3. have you looked at the Croydon Chess website lately (www.croydonchess.com)? Would it surprise you to learn that this site's development cost was $0 (done by me as a volunteer) and its ongoing running cost, including domain name fees, is less than $100/year?

No surprise at all. In my other blog posts I advocate that CV should be footing the bill for all clubs web-hosting and providing a template website (plus training) on a Content Management System .... all of this would cost around $200 per year (for hosting - clubs would still pay their $20 per year domain registration fees). Email is also free if you want email hosting....

Technology isn't about a website (well in part it is, but related in the same way that the color of your car is related to Motor Vehicles)...take a look at the AFL website, look at the stats, the graphics, the interaction. See if you can imagine what goes on behind the scenes for all that...


So why the need to spend $10,000/year on a paid technology officer? I need more information pls.

I'm talking about membership databases, linked to ACF, automatic emails, renewal invoices, online payments, membership cards, calendars, club portals, CV documentation all online, the list goes on... If you'd like to volunteer to setup an SQL database and build a custom web-interface with secure login at multiple levels for clubs, CV and members (my guess 300-400 hours work) and COMMIT unconditionally that it be done within a time-frame of (say) 12 months-- well I think we've just saved $10,000! :)

Spiny Norman
28-09-2009, 07:27 PM
I'm talking about membership databases, linked to ACF, automatic emails, renewal invoices, online payments, membership cards, calendars, club portals, CV documentation all online, the list goes on... If you'd like to volunteer to setup an SQL database and build a custom web-interface with secure login at multiple levels for clubs, CV and members (my guess 300-400 hours work) and COMMIT unconditionally that it be done within a time-frame of (say) 12 months-- well I think we've just saved $10,000! :)
Croydon's website has the following technical capabilities (not all of them used at present, or implemented but ignored):
-- membership database (username, password, address information, etc)
-- linked to ACF (kind of ... I have linked our membership list to the ACF list and each quarter I have a program that I run which updates the membership list with ACF ratings and produces information about member ratings for our website)
-- automatic emails (it has the ability to send emails to members registered with the site, however I do not use this function)
-- renewal invoices (plug in module)
-- online payments (plug in module)
-- membership cards (NO, this is not available AFAIK)
-- calendars (plugin module)
-- club portals (yes, unlimited)
-- CV documentation (easy enough to publish if such exists)
-- discussion forums
-- display of tournament results
-- display of chess games
-- etc

Absolutely NO NEED to build custom stuff. All of this technology exists as freeware. Croydon's site is built on DotNetNuke (DNN). The AFL website also runs on (a customised version of) DotNetNuke. So we are in good company.

Incidentally, DNN runs on SQL Server as its back end database, so it is relatively easy to develop custom modules that integrate with the website data. There is a development community that have put together the documentation that is needed to do this.

I am not necessarily suggesting that DNN is the answer. There are plenty of other free content management and portal systems. Many of them are quite sophisticated. I am also not volunteering to develop a new CV website, although I am quite prepared to spend some time showing a CV person exactly how Croydon's site works, how all of the above functionality is relatively easily implemented, and so on.

arosar
28-09-2009, 08:11 PM
Look, if you really feel like spending tech $$ but want to go cheap, then you can post your project on websites like Elance (http://www.elance.com/) and GetAFreelancer (http://www.getafreelancer.com/).

I don't have direct experience but I've heard of others who've been happy with developers from Vietnam, for instance, who work for peanuts.

But why spend money? I think clubs will have very modest requirements so free site creators should be looked at. I created test pages here (http://sydneychess.weebly.com/) and here (http://chesssociety.synthasite.com/).

AR

MichaelBaron
28-09-2009, 08:26 PM
No surprise at all. In my other blog posts I advocate that CV should be footing the bill for all clubs web-hosting and providing a template website (plus training) on a Content Management System .... all of this would cost around $200 per year (for hosting - clubs would still pay their $20 per year domain registration fees). Email is also free if you want email hosting....

Technology isn't about a website (well in part it is, but related in the same way that the color of your car is related to Motor Vehicles)...take a look at the AFL website, look at the stats, the graphics, the interaction. See if you can imagine what goes on behind the scenes for all that...



I'm talking about membership databases, linked to ACF, automatic emails, renewal invoices, online payments, membership cards, calendars, club portals, CV documentation all online, the list goes on... If you'd like to volunteer to setup an SQL database and build a custom web-interface with secure login at multiple levels for clubs, CV and members (my guess 300-400 hours work) and COMMIT unconditionally that it be done within a time-frame of (say) 12 months-- well I think we've just saved $10,000! :)


There is indeed a lot of work but it is to be done during the set up stages..once the databases, content management systems etc are set up..data management becomese quite simple :). As far as development is concerned...yes, developments of this scale are unlikely to be handled by volonteers...and the costs could be up to $3000-4000. But as for ongoing expenses....they will be very limited - hosting etc....as long the intial system design is carried out well!

ChessGuru
28-09-2009, 10:38 PM
Croydon's website has the following technical capabilities ...

That's pretty good stuff! If you think that it can be tweaked to the needs of CV, GREAT! Perhaps you're right; we don't need to spend the money.

I'm looking for a solution - an end result. If we can do it with no money down so much the better. I'll definately take you up on the offer of showing the CV "tech genius" the capabilities of DNN.... if it does what we want and can be rolled out for every club as well, brilliant!

Thanks heaps for the tip!

PS. Michael - once it is developed you're right there is minimal updating cost. But then the next big thing comes along and we have to be ready. Virtual reality chess. Wireless DGT Boards. Who knows what....

ChessGuru
30-09-2009, 08:06 PM
Box Hill Chess Club - angel or devil?

Read (http://www.cordover.com.au) all about it.

Plus - how can YOU help Chess? Click here (http://www.cordover.com.au) to find out.

MichaelBaron
30-09-2009, 08:49 PM
Box Hill Chess Club - angel or devil?

Read (http://www.cordover.com.au) all about it.

Plus - how can YOU help Chess? Click here (http://www.cordover.com.au) to find out.

Very true...i have been raising this issue for a long time..that Box Hill and Chess CV are becoming as one!

Carl Gorka
06-10-2009, 06:56 PM
There seem to have been a number of rumours regarding the MCC and the current CV election issue, which actually cause us a great deal of amusement, so thanks to those spreading rumours about our actions and agenda.:lol: :lol:

As for facts, we have invited David Cordover to come and speak at our next committee meeting this Thursday specifically regarding his running for CV. Now, as the MCC does actually have its own agenda (:P ) we shall be asking some questions of him in regards to some issues that may affect the MCC.

To keep a balance on things, we have also invited the current executive of CV, or a representation from CV, to the following committee meeting which will be held at the start of November, though the exact date has yet to be set. Likewise, we'll be talking about issues which relate to CV and MCC.

As a club, the MCC has not thought greatly about the election, but we will start to take more of an interest now that things are getting closer. If anyone else intends standing, then they are also welcome to come and talk to us about their plans:)

Mischa
06-10-2009, 09:53 PM
I'm loving the input from interstaters, honestly thank you guys for the continued input in out state affairs.
Nice to see you have our state interests at heart.
But we can probably take it from here guys..ta

Desmond
06-10-2009, 10:02 PM
I'm loving the input from interstaters, honestly thank you guys for the continued input in out state affairs.
Nice to see you have our state interests at heart.
But we can probably take it from here guys..ta
Who are you talking to? No interstater has posted on this thread for over a week. You expressed this sentiment before. Maybe you're bored? Oh well, don't let me stop you. Speaking of valued input...

Mischa
06-10-2009, 10:04 PM
sorry Boris not here that often any more so it takes me a bit to read through it all
still I repeat nice to see such interest in Vic affairs...you are from interstate?

Brian_Jones
07-10-2009, 07:53 AM
sorry Boris not here that often any more so it takes me a bit to read through it all
still I repeat nice to see such interest in Vic affairs...you are from interstate?

Boris is a canetoad (or is it a banana bender?). So is gunner after he had the operation. :D

Garrett
07-10-2009, 08:07 AM
So is gunner after he had the operation. :D

There's still one operation to go before Gunner is fully accepted as a Queenslander.

And it's on me. :P

cheers
Garrett.

Desmond
07-10-2009, 08:47 AM
sorry Boris not here that often any more so it takes me a bit to read through it all
still I repeat nice to see such interest in Vic affairs...you are from interstate?I'm a Queenslander. Was born in Vic though; does that mean I have your permission to post here?

arosar
07-10-2009, 10:20 AM
And what about me? I am a great admirer of the Melbourne public transport system. Am I permitted to post here on that account?

Cheers,

AR

Basil
07-10-2009, 10:30 AM
There's still one operation to go before Gunner is fully accepted as a Queenslander.
What? A lobotomy? Bwa ha ha ha! :D
A nasal plug? Bwa ha ha ha! :D

Rincewind
07-10-2009, 10:44 AM
What? A lobotomy? Bwa ha ha ha! :D
A nasal plug? Bwa ha ha ha! :D

Or both. What do you think they use for the nasal plugs? The frontal lobes. ;)

Basil
07-10-2009, 10:57 AM
The nasal plugs are surgically inserted deep into the cavity and have the effect of altering the voice. The output (especially on the female of the species) is worse than banshee being sliced with a band saw.

ChessGuru
07-10-2009, 02:53 PM
So the results from the Poll on who would make a better President were as follows:

Katrin Wills 23
David Cordover 23
Uncommitted 6
Gary Wastell 4

(Wills wins on tie-break due to more recent scores...2 of the last 3 votes.)

The next Poll is up online...please take the time to vote on:

What are the 3 MOST important goals for Chess Victoria to achieve in the next 12 months?

VOTE NOW (http://www.cordover.com.au)

ER
07-10-2009, 02:57 PM
hey guys take it easy with the campaign. We need some really heavy stuff to be left for the last couple of weeks! It's going to be a cliff hanger thriller IMO! :clap:

Carl Gorka
07-10-2009, 09:53 PM
hey guys take it easy with the campaign. We need some really heavy stuff to be left for the last couple of weeks! It's going to be a cliff hanger thriller IMO! :clap:

Hmmm.....

...will Frodo Sandler be able to cast the ring into the abyss of MCC Doom before the Dark Lord in his ACF stronghold finds him.

And what role will Gollover/Smeavid play in the end....

:lol: :lol:

ER
08-10-2009, 09:42 AM
:P I am not revealing my cards yet! :owned: I need to score some scoops toward the end!
Some of the many from either side (and some independent/neutral ones) aren't as happy as many want them to be! :wall: