PDA

View Full Version : The Gap Chess Club - no longer rating events



Desmond
16-12-2010, 10:05 AM
AGM minutes (http://www.thegapchessclub.org.au/admin/agm2010/agm2010-minutes.pdf)


Motion 3 – Proposed by Andrew Robinson (Seconded by Greg Colwell)
“During 2011 the club will follow these rules:

CAQ membership will not be a requirement to enter club tournaments.
CAQ fees will not collected by the club.
Annual tournament fee will be reduced from $25 to $10
Club tournaments will not be submitted to the CAQ for rating
Explanatory notes accompanying Motion 3
1. CAQ membership fees will rise from $10 to $15 in 2011.
2. If the motion is passed, total fees will be:
$10 club membership + $10 tournament fees = $20 Total
3. If the motion is not passed, total fees will remain at 2010 levels plus the $5 increase in CAQ membership: $10 club membership + $15 CAQ fee + $25 tournament fees = $50 Total
4. The benefit is saving $30.
5. The loss is that the club’s tournaments will not be rated, and players’ games will not be rated.
6. Club members are still free to join the CAQ if they wish to.
7. The club will continue to be affiliated to the CAQ.
...
(Voting: 4 in favour; 3 against, 2 abstained)
The motion was carried.

A bit of a shame IMO.

Rincewind
16-12-2010, 10:36 AM
(Voting: 4 in favour; 3 against, 2 abstained)
The motion was carried.[/INDENT]

I agree it is a shame. The voting was very close to have carried by a single vote. It seems a backward move by the club.

What ratings (if any) will the club use going forward to determine seedings and pairings in club tournaments?

antichrist
16-12-2010, 11:52 AM
well Boris, it is an experiment, see if there are more backsides on seats because of it. I got some feedback that if games not rated up and coming players will not attend, but I have yet to see proof.

Desmond
16-12-2010, 12:04 PM
well Boris, it is an experiment, see if there are more backsides on seats because of it. I got some feedback that if games not rated up and coming players will not attend, but I have yet to see proof.At all clubs I have attended, they tend to get better participation on nights when rated events are scheduled.



I agree it is a shame. The voting was very close to have carried by a single vote. It seems a backward move by the club.

What ratings (if any) will the club use going forward to determine seedings and pairings in club tournaments?There is mention in the minutes of running an online rating systems but it doesn't seem to be decided if that will be done or not. I assume they would continue to seed on the basis of ACF ratings.

Garrett
16-12-2010, 01:04 PM
I don't think Logan rates their club events either.

At least they didn't when I was going there a couple of years ago...

Garvinator
16-12-2010, 01:16 PM
I don't think Logan rates their club events either.

At least they didn't when I was going there a couple of years ago...
Apparently in the last couple of years they have been running more nights with rapid competitions. In turn, their numbers have been dropping away.

I understand that Jim Ritchie is looking to get them more involved in the whole CAQ scene, with rated tournaments, advertising etc. I do hope that this occurs.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2010, 01:52 PM
Does the CAQ charge clubs a fee for ratings above and beyond what the ACF charges for ratings, or does the CAQ just pass on the ACF charges to the clubs? I'm just curious about the source of the difference between the $10 annual tournament fee without ratings and the $25 annual tournament fee with.

Desmond
16-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Does the CAQ charge clubs a fee for ratings above and beyond what the ACF charges for ratings, or does the CAQ just pass on the ACF charges to the clubs? I'm just curious about the source of the difference between the $10 annual tournament fee without ratings and the $25 annual tournament fee with.
Yes they add a surcharge.

antichrist
17-12-2010, 12:40 AM
At the Canterbury Bulldogs club in Sydney I was under the impression that their internal competition games were not rated - years ago now. I expect most clubs that way.

Bill Gletsos
17-12-2010, 04:33 PM
At the Canterbury Bulldogs club in Sydney I was under the impression that their internal competition games were not rated - years ago now. I expect most clubs that way.Then your expectation is wrong.

ER
17-12-2010, 06:06 PM
I don't understand this motion of Clubs finding ways to distance themselves from their State authorities!


Won't this action cause disturbances in the running of Interclub competitions?
Won't players who would chose to become individual members of their State associations be charged for their membership anyway?
Won't those clubs be using the ACF's rating lists to decide seedings etc anyway?

Garvinator
17-12-2010, 06:41 PM
I don't understand this motion of Clubs finding ways to distance themselves from their State authorities!I do understand it, but certainly believe it is based on a flawed premise.

One idea in some clubs is that to attract new players (and keep current ones), things must be kept social, or at least as social as possible. To that end, entry fees are offered as cheap as possible, tournaments are not played for ratings and things are kept pretty light hearted.

The flaw in this premise is that after a while, people get sick and tired of playing the same people over and over again with nothing at stake ie rating points in this case.

Eventually players start looking for different clubs that do offer rated, weekly events to compete it. They are even prepared to pay a higher amount per week for being part of the larger scheme of things.

The premise also means that experienced players from other clubs that run rated events are unlikely to come to that club for very long.

In keeping with this nature, also it means that competition chess is not run every week in the belief that asking people to turn up every week is asking too much.

This is another flawed premise. If it was accurate, then almost all of the clubs in Australia would be going bust as they run on the once a week competition format.


Won't this action cause disturbances in the running of Interclub competitions?The Gap does not compete in any CAQ interclub competitions. They occasionally play social interclub versus some nearby clubs of similar ilk, but The Gap does not compete in the formal interclub.

Won't players who would chose to become individual members of their State associations be charged for their membership anyway?Those players from The Gap who join at weekenders or other clubs will still be picked up, but The Gap will not be responsible for collecting the membership.

Won't those clubs be using the ACF's rating lists to decide seedings etc anyway?Have no idea.

There are two big issues for The Gap in 2011. When a club affiliates with CAQ, it is covered under CAQ's insurance scheme for all club related activities. But to be a covered club, said club must have 5 members at all times.

If The Gap does not sign up 5 members, then they are not covered under CAQ's insurance policy.

Also, by not signing up any members, The Gap denies itself of any opportunity to have a vote (s) at the CAQ AGM.

I will also add that if The Gap does decide to hold this line, then they lose their privileged position of Friday nights. This means that if another club wanted to start up on Friday night and run rated events, that would be considered. Whereas, if The Gap were still rating their events, then CAQ would be advising the new club to find another night, or convince us that the new club would not impact on The Gap.

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2010, 10:00 PM
My view on this sort of thing generally accords with Garvin's above. It's sad to see clubs going down that path.

Another way to put my view "if it's not rated, it's not real" - and this is coming from a person who has shed 200 ratings points in 4 years.

Moriarty
18-12-2010, 01:20 AM
I will also add that if The Gap does decide to hold this line, then they lose their privileged position of Friday nights. This means that if another club wanted to start up on Friday night and run rated events, that would be considered. Whereas, if The Gap were still rating their events, then CAQ would be advising the new club to find another night, or convince us that the new club would not impact on The Gap.

And if the CAQ encourages a new club at, say, Ashgrove, Red Hill, Bardon, etc., it will not do much to encourage The Gap to have its tournaments rated from 2012 onwards will it?

The resolution is for a year. Since it is a club with a history of rated tournaments (including just about the only regular rapid rated club tournament in Qld), you would think there is at least some chance of tournaments being rated in future years, particularly since the voting margin was only 1 member.

The premises you say are flawed are what you assume to be the starting point for the club's position. I don't agree with your assumptions. E.g. tournament games are not fortnightly because it is "asking too much". They are fortnightly because the majority of the regular membership of the club cannot commit to weekly games. Yes, believe it or not, there is a place for a club that runs tournaments at intervals other than weekly with some flexibility in the draw. Clearly, those regular members like it that way and, since it is their club, they can run it that way. Perhaps there is a place for a club that does this without rating games, I suppose we'll see next year. You might see more players from The Gap in weekenders next year.

Clearly, this was not a decision where the club has a single collective mind to take a particular direction for one or two reasons common to all members. As can be seen by the voting numbers versus membership, most of the members didn't care about having games rated or didn't care enough to read the proposed motions or participate in the AGM. Of those that did care and voted in favour, there were various reasons that they perceived as valid for making the change. These included the significant saving in the club's financials by not rating tournaments, considerations of the effect on tournament participation, the increased fees for the upcoming year and the CAQ's decisions in relation to the allocation of its financial resources. These are all pretty clear on the minutes. In fact, there are a number of cost-saving initiatives referred to in the minutes. Maybe the value that members place on having a rating system is much lower than in other clubs, or maybe they just think it is and will find out next year that they were wrong.

There is more than one way of running club chess and it is the membership of the club that decides the way they want to do it for their club. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that. This is, in my opinion, just a club trying a new way of doing their tournaments (of which there are only 2 classic rated and one rapid).

ChessGuru
24-12-2010, 10:02 AM
If any club wants an INTERNAL rating list please get in touch...

In the same way that Chess Kids has a ratings system (http://tornelo.chesskids.com.au/) any club could have the same thing.

Features:
* Web-based pairing program
* Instant updates to ratings
* Stats all automatic
* Player management