PDA

View Full Version : zonal



Pages : 1 [2]

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 09:53 AM
The arbiters had to follow the FIDE laws regarding qualifiers and awarded titles for the zonals. These are available on the FIDE website. By default, swiss perfect prints out progressive and buch. tiebreaks. The arbiters are not at fault.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 10:36 AM
Here are some pictures taken at the Zonal. Apologies for those with slow internet connection, but I think most people will want to see these. My camera isn't top quality and some pictures appear yellow but the tournament hall had excellent lighting. Very good seeing conditions and lights were not too bright.

This is the view from the main entrance of the playing hall. In the foreground stands International Organiser Paul Spiller who did a fantastic job.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 10:42 AM
The top half (excluding DGT boards) of the tournament. Previous shot rotated about 45 degrees right. The foreground table is empty because in the second last round, a player on that table asked to have the game moved because of noise from another function just outside. But noise disturbance from outside was generally at a minimum and the tournament was excellent.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 10:50 AM
And the view of the bottom boards and the women's section. In the background is a nice garden where players can go to smoke or to simply enjoy the view. On the right is the whiteboard where the standings, pairings, and other info was posted.

On the left, Narelle Szuveges defeated Vivian Smith to become the new WIM. It was the last game to finish and was a tricky K+N+P vs K+N. Szuveges manged to prevent Smith from sacrificing her knight for the pawn.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:07 AM
On board 5, FM George Xie played Aaron Guthrie in the last round. Both players actually had a chance to become an IM but needed to win and have results on other boards go their way. Behind them are boards 6, 7, and so on. All players on this row of boards had little flags on the tables, and everyone in the tournament had those name cards adding to the atmosphere. Just behind Xie you can see the flags of New Zealand, Australia and Fiji, which were represented by the players. Xie ended up winning this game.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:12 AM
The top board of the women's section was broadcast live on a DGT board from about round 3. Irina Berezina-Feldman defeated Angela Song to win the Women's section. In the background are some advertising banners and the FIDE flag.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:18 AM
On board 4 of the Open, Jonathan Humphrey smashed Igor Bjelobrk in only a few moves to win the FM title. When Humphrey executed his combination, the board was surrounded with many excited onlookers. I think there were nearly 20 people looking at the board at the time. Bjelebrk was forced to settle for the FM title (but he had already qualified).

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:27 AM
IM Vladimir Feldman took a quick draw with FM Paul Garbett in the last round. Garbett had been leading the tournament at some stage and was always amongst the front-runners, hence his excellent progressive tie-break. Garbett ended up winning the IM title as a few minutes later, his main rival, FM Greg Canfell lost his game. I was told by someone else later that apparently, Garbett has been playing very good chess lately because his wife had been dealing with some issues overseas for many months, so he had more time for chess... Just as interesting is that Feldman did not lose a single game in the tournament, with 3 wins and 6 draws. This reminds me of another Vladimir...

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:32 AM
IM Alex Wohl drew with GM Daryl Johansen. This turned out not to be good enough for Johansen to win the Zonal. Had he won, he would have had a playoff match with Lane.

In the background is deputy arbiter Jashint Maharaj and IA Gary Bekker.

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:40 AM
IM Gary Lane won against FM Greg Canfell to win the tournament outright and qualify into the next stage of the FIDE World Championship. Unfortunately, I was unable to be at the prizegiving ceremony, so I don't have any pictures of that. Perhaps someone else can post Lane victorious with the trophy.

Had Canfell won, he would be an IM. Last Zonal, Canfell also fell just short in the final game. Perhaps he will be third time lucky...

1min_grandmaster
05-02-2005, 11:48 AM
Finally, the trophies that were awarded. From the left, the Open Champion Trophy, the Women's Champion Trophy, and the Ortvin Sarapu Trophy, awarded to the best placed New Zealander, which I imagine would have been (newly crowned IM and former FM) Paul Garbett. Personally I think the designs of the trophies were really good. The photos probably don't do them justice.

pax
05-02-2005, 01:44 PM
Thanks 1minGM, great photos!

George Xie
05-02-2005, 02:31 PM
after the tournament I felling so sad i am still FM........... but is ok, next time I try to do better, also I hope Next time zonal will in australian! (Gold Coast!!)

Lucena
05-02-2005, 06:08 PM
Gareth, wasn't there an incidence involving you, Tim Reilly and a packet of potato chips many years ago? I think you give as good as you get based on what I heard about that. ;)

Yes indeed, it was food of some sort, it was many years ago when I was about 15, in 1998. Tim objected to my eating at the board, and asked me to stop it. I noted the objection, then in my youthful impudence decided to have another mouthful just for the heck of it(hey, I actually was going to stop eating). Anyway, my rudeness elicited an outburst from Tim that could be heard throughout the playing area. An incident that doesn't reflect well on either party.

Just in case anyone was wondering, these days I never eat at the board, and I get on quite well with Tim.

Your suggestion I am some sort of off-putting opponent, based on an isolated incident that happened over 6 years ago is unfair. I almost never indulge in any sort of gamesmanship or off-putting behaviour. Probably my most irritating habit is to frequently stay away from the board when it is not my turn to move.

My anonymous noseblower opponent on the other hand seems to be oblivious to his actions and blows his nose during games on a regular basis. I could cite other habits if given the opportunity, but I wasn't intending to do that. Anyway he didn't really put me off, I was mainly mentioning it as something of interest for me from the tournament.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2005, 07:09 PM
BTW my reading of the current zonal/sub-zonal rules on the FIDE web-site the following rules apply to a zonal or sub zonal.

1) Coming =1st (3 max) gets you the IM (or WIM) title and is not affected by any restriction because it is an "open" swiss.
2) You to get an IM title automatically if you score a 12 game 2450+ performance (a WIM for a 12 game 2250+ performance). Unfortunately the Oceania Zonals have all been 9 rounds.
3) Score 66.6% (min 9 games) and get the IM (WIM) title. Limited to one for "open" swisses.
4) Score 50% (min 9 games) and get the FM (WFM) title. Limited to two for "open" swisses.


However at the FIDE Congress at the Olympiad last year new title regulations were passed. It is my understanding that the following are the new regulations with respect to zonals/sub-zonals. What is unclear is if they came into effect immediately they were passed by the General Assembly or if they come into effect from a later date e.g. 1st July 2005.

New regulations:
1) Coming =1st (3 max) gets you the IM (or WIM) title and is not affected by any restriction because it is an "open" swiss.
2) You to get an IM norm equivalent to 20 games if you achieve a 9 game 2450+ performance (a WIM norm for a 9 game 2250+ performance).
3) Score 66.6% (min 9 games) and get the IM (WIM) title. Limited to only the highest scoring or the highest placed on tiebreak for "open" swisses.
4) Score 50% (min 9 games) and get the FM (WFM) title. Limited to only the two highest scoring or the highest placed on tiebreak for "open" swisses.

2) has implications for the Oceania Zonals.
3) and 4) just seem to be a clarification of exactly how the winner of the titles are determined.

Garvinator
05-02-2005, 08:10 PM
2) You to get an IM norm equivalent to 20 games if you achieve a 9 game 2450+ performance (a WIM norm for a 9 game 2250+ performance).
so would this mean that there will be no WIM norms from this zonal if the new regulations are in force? Also I notice that its norms, not titles, meaning that the three norm standard is now in force for zonals. If I have read this all correctly, then fide have made a very good general principle decision :clap:

pax
05-02-2005, 08:22 PM
so would this mean that there will be no WIM norms from this zonal if the new regulations are in force? Also I notice that its norms, not titles, meaning that the three norm standard is now in force for zonals. If I have read this all correctly, then fide have made a very good general principle decision :clap:

Did you actually read 3) and 4) Garvin???

Garvinator
05-02-2005, 08:30 PM
Did you actually read 3) and 4) Garvin???
yeah i did, read it again too :eek: thought you might have to meet each of those requirements to get a norm/title? I guess I am just plain confused :( or just hopeful that the new regs will mean that one performance cant lead to a title.

Alan Shore
05-02-2005, 08:43 PM
Yes indeed, it was food of some sort, it was many years ago when I was about 15, in 1998. Tim objected to my eating at the board, and asked me to stop it. I noted the objection, then in my youthful impudence decided to have another mouthful just for the heck of it(hey, I actually was going to stop eating). Anyway, my rudeness elicited an outburst from Tim that could be heard throughout the playing area. An incident that doesn't reflect well on either party.

Just in case anyone was wondering, these days I never eat at the board, and I get on quite well with Tim.

Actually I thought it quite amusing, I don't see it as any sort of poor reflection on you.


Your suggestion I am some sort of off-putting opponent, based on an isolated incident that happened over 6 years ago is unfair. I almost never indulge in any sort of gamesmanship or off-putting behaviour. Probably my most irritating habit is to frequently stay away from the board when it is not my turn to move.

That wasn't my suggestion at all, hence the emoticon. I see no problem with eating at the board. Also I too am rarely seen sitting at the board during time controls.


My anonymous noseblower opponent on the other hand seems to be oblivious to his actions and blows his nose during games on a regular basis. I could cite other habits if given the opportunity, but I wasn't intending to do that. Anyway he didn't really put me off, I was mainly mentioning it as something of interest for me from the tournament.

Really? I'd be interested in these 'other habits', perhaps we can compile some kind of list, haha. Still, I'd rather my opponent blow his nose than sit there sniffing and dribbling.

I remember a tournament I once played, it was not my opponent but the player sitting on my left that for some reason expediated gas (burp) on a very regular basis (every couple of mins). It really distracted me and I ended up drawing from a won position. (So let it be known it's not always your opponent that can put you off!).

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2005, 09:38 PM
Did you actually read 3) and 4) Garvin???
He appears to have failed to comprehend the regulations.

Garvinator
05-02-2005, 09:44 PM
He appears to have failed to comprehend the regulations.
on this one, yes in terms of fully understanding their implications and how they would have changed matters for this zonal :oops:

Lucena
05-02-2005, 09:56 PM
Ok I guess I misinterpreted your post. And no I won't go any further on the player's habits, it might not go down too well in some parts. :uhoh: However I am more than happy to enter into discussions more generally about bad habits at the chessboard, gamesmanship, etiquette, rudeness etc.

Getting back to the zonal, I was just wondering if anyone knows what on earth was going on with Black's 13th move of the game Solomon-Feldman: d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Nf3 c5 Rb1 0-0 Be2 Nc6 d5 Ne5 Nxe5 Bxe5 Qd2 e6 f4 Bc7. Bc7? I'm no Grunfeld expert, but this move looks really weird to me. I'm guessing it's theory. Can someone please exshplain?

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2005, 10:34 PM
Ok I guess I misinterpreted your post. And no I won't go any further on the player's habits, it might not go down too well in some parts. :uhoh: However I am more than happy to enter into discussions more generally about bad habits at the chessboard, gamesmanship, etiquette, rudeness etc.

Getting back to the zonal, I was just wondering if anyone knows what on earth was going on with Black's 13th move of the game Solomon-Feldman: d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Nf3 c5 Rb1 0-0 Be2 Nc6 d5 Ne5 Nxe5 Bxe5 Qd2 e6 f4 Bc7. Bc7? I'm no Grunfeld expert, but this move looks really weird to me. I'm guessing it's theory. Can someone please exshplain?
13. Bg7 is the usual move. Mega 2005 has 172 games. It has 150 games with 13. Bc7, which is dynamic. It is based on the idea that White cannot take advantage of the dark squared bishop vacating the a1-h8 diagonal.
14. Bc4 is not the optimal move (14. 0-0), however Feldman's 14.e5 lets solo of the hook. Instead Feldman should have played 14.a6.

Thunderspirit
05-02-2005, 11:52 PM
You'll have 2 forgive me for not reading all the stuff in this post, cuase being in Malta, I have slightly better things to do. But I just checked the standings and saw that George Xie and a NZer came =2nd, who got the IM title, was there a play off?? Iggy got FM, and Narelle is now a WIM right??

I play a rapid in Malta tomorrow, if i play well, you'll hear... :cheeky:

Alan Shore
06-02-2005, 12:18 AM
You'll have 2 forgive me for not reading all the stuff in this post, cuase being in Malta, I have slightly better things to do. But I just checked the standings and saw that George Xie and a NZer came =2nd, who got the IM title, was there a play off?? Iggy got FM, and Narelle is now a WIM right??

I play a rapid in Malta tomorrow, if i play well, you'll hear... :cheeky:

Ordinarily you'd get chastised and told to read the damn thread but since there's been all this uncertainty..

What we've ascertained thus far is:

Garbett - IM
Igy, Jono - FM

Narelle - WIM
Angela, Shannon - WFM

(Some think Aaron Guthrie has grounds to appeal to FIDE for the FM title, he was unlucky. Vaness also unlucky to miss the WFM).

Candy-Cane
06-02-2005, 01:50 AM
Yeah on the other count back it said i got it, which is stupid coz Shannon beat me, so she deserved to get it.

I was dissapointed I never got to play some harder oppentants like Anglea, Narelle and Evgenia- I enetered for that!

O well 2 years! :P

Lucena
07-02-2005, 12:09 AM
O well 2 years! :P

You could always try to get it the other way.

Rhubarb
12-02-2005, 11:14 PM
I believe Canfell has only one IM norm, a 12 game norm from Hungary 1990 so he will need to be the best non-IM in this tournament to take the IM title from the Zonal.
Hi Ian,
Just so I know where I stand as far as IM norms go, did you ever even read this discussion (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=25658&postcount=114) I had with Bill after the Australian Masters, or did you just make an assumption on behalf of FIDE that it would never count as an IM norm, even though it's the most minor deficiency you can possibly get in an IM norm.

Regards,
Greg

Ian_Rogers
13-02-2005, 10:38 AM
Hi Greg,

Until your last post, I didn't realise that your performance in the 2004 Australian Masters was a norm (dodgy or otherwise).
Of the technical question re foreigners, I understand that under the FIDE regs (at leats the old ones) the ACF has the right to nominate one tournament per year as a national championship in which the number of foreign opponents ceases to be relevant when assessing norms. If the 2004 Australian Masters is (or becomes) that nominated tournament for 2004, then you don't have to worry how many foreigners were in the tournament.
(In fact I'm not sure what other tournament would be nominated by the ACF - the 2003/4 Australian Championship would presumably be nominated for 2003, while the 2004/5 Australian Open had enough foreigners and no norms anyway.)
So on my reading of the rules, it seems that you have two completely valid IM norms.

Cheers,

Ian

Rhubarb
13-02-2005, 03:40 PM
If the 2004 Australian Masters is (or becomes) that nominated tournament for 2004, then you don't have to worry how many foreigners were in the tournament.
(In fact I'm not sure what other tournament would be nominated by the ACF - the 2003/4 Australian Championship would presumably be nominated for 2003, while the 2004/5 Australian Open had enough foreigners and no norms anyway.)Okay, but I'm not sure what the ACF or FIDE would think of nominating an event after the year has been completed. Bill?

So on my reading of the rules, it seems that you have two completely valid IM norms. But say this one isn't completely valid. I was wondering whether FIDE had decided on the one hand to slightly ease the restrictions for norms (no categories, just PR; no round-robins required etc.) and on the other hand make everything black and white such that they can categorically state that a result is either a norm or isn't, and no correspondence shall be entered into.

I don't suppose you know of any recent title applicants who got through with one slightly dubious norm?

DoroPhil
13-02-2005, 05:43 PM
Any IM norms from the zonal? Humphrey, perhaps?

pax
14-02-2005, 02:30 PM
Any IM norms from the zonal? Humphrey, perhaps?

No. I believe his PR was just under the required 2450.