PDA

View Full Version : Rants on "AUSTRALASIAN CHESS CRISIS"



siow, weng nian
19-02-2011, 10:10 PM
check it out: blogger Doubleroo's rant and guest celebrity ranter: explosive!

http://doubleroo.blogspot.com/2011/02/rant-featuring-celebrity-guest-ranter.html

I predict this will get up people's nose and other parts of the anatomy in a mighty big way! or not! what do I know ...... :D

But bravo to the ranters! :clap: for their courage! (not necessarily meaning I totally agree or endorse the position) ......

But seriously folks, may be something within the "rants" if we are able to exercise restraint (rein in the emotions) and engage only the "rational" Descartes "ghost in the machine".

And please don't shoot the messenger, namely, moi!

But I am happy to engage in constructive debate and discussion ..... or not!

Adamski
19-02-2011, 10:53 PM
Arianne has some good points. From the start of her rant looks like ACF web site needs some updating. I think top Aus woman player should not have to fork out $250 to play in Zonal.

Garvinator
19-02-2011, 10:57 PM
I could not quite work out most of the points from Arianne's 'rant' but the one point I could pick up on that she is very mis-understanding of.

Had Arianne applied for the selected spots in the Open Division, which is the first step on the road to the World Championship, she would have not been selected as one of Australia's two candidates as she would be a long way behind ZYZ, David Smerdon and George Xie.

Arianne was accepted for the Women's Zonal spot and would have received the entitlements that come with that. It seems that Arianne was trying to change over to the Open Zonal, but was wanting to be treated differently because she was selected for the WOMENS zonal as a female.

Had she just entered the Open Zonal as an ordinary participant, then she would have been charged the applicable entry for her rating, which is the $250 mentioned.

Adamski
19-02-2011, 11:07 PM
I could not quite work out most of the points from Arianne's 'rant' but the one point I could pick up on that she is very mis-understanding of.

Had Arianne applied for the selected spots in the Open Division, which is the first step on the road to the World Championship, she would have not been selected as one of Australia's two candidates as she would be a long way behind ZYZ, David Smerdon and George Xie.

Arianne was accepted for the Women's Zonal spot and would have received the entitlements that come with that. It seems that Arianne was trying to change over to the Open Zonal, but was wanting to be treated differently because she was selected for the WOMENS zonal as a female.

Had she just entered the Open Zonal as an ordinary participant, then she would have been charged the applicable entry for her rating, which is the $250 mentioned.
Agreed. Thanks for the explanation Garvinator.

Rincewind
19-02-2011, 11:09 PM
Arianne has some good points. From the start of her rant looks like ACF web site needs some updating.

From my reading the comments on the website being out of date (and complaints about the rating system) are Aleks's and not Arianne's.

Garvinator
19-02-2011, 11:15 PM
From my reading the comments on the website being out of date (and complaints about the rating system) are Aleks's and not Arianne's.Aren't Arianne's at the bottom of the page?

Rincewind
19-02-2011, 11:25 PM
Aren't Arianne's at the bottom of the page?

I believe everything between her name in bold and centred through to her name in normal weight and left justified almost at the end are Arianne's "rant". The complaints about the website being out of date are before that and I assume are the words of the blogger, Aleks Wohl. Aleks also has a sentence between Arianne signing off and the copy of the letter.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2011, 11:28 PM
I have a number of comments about WIM Caoili's "RANT" about the Oceania Zonal. Arianne Caoili's statement about the ACF's supposed hostility to her request is, to the best of my knowledge, false.

WIM Arianne Caoili applied for the Zonal, and was duly selected for a position as one of Australia's representatives in the Women's Oceania Zonal through a selection process that I conducted as ACF Selections Director. At no point did she explicitly apply for selection as a representative in the Open Zonal (and given that the selected applicants were GM David Smerdon and IM George Xie it is quite safe to assume she would not have been selected for one of the top two spots if she had.)

After contacting me on 31 October saying she would most likely participate, the next I heard from Arianne was on 27 November asking if the same conditions would apply to her if she played in the Open section. This was an extremely late stage of the process to be effectively reinventing the Zonal qualification wheel by asking for conditions in the Open section, which she never explicitly applied to be selected for in the first place, and for which Australia's two places were filled - apparently just on account of being a strong female player.

I responded to Arianne's 27 Nov email simply as follows:

"Dear Arianne,

I would not expect so, given that our two Open spots are taken, but feel free to check with Paul.

Cheers, Kevin."

This was not, as Arianne apparently construes it, a case of being "downright hostile to [her] request." It was simply an expression of doubt on my part that the organisers would make allowances for her irregular and tardy request to be granted conditions to which she would not be normally entitled.

In any case whether she was given those conditions for the Open or not had nothing to do with the ACF (unless we were supposed to de-select GM Smerdon or IM Xie to make room for her) but rather were matters for the organisers and, arguably, FIDE.

Indeed, when she writes "Although the New Zealanders had no objections the ACF were downright hostile to my request" I am wondering if she has it something like the wrong way around to what she wanted to say by mistake.

In any case, the organisers decided they could not grant her such conditions, a completely understandable decision given the financial constraints that they were under, and one which I totally support. (Claims that Arianne's entry would have created no extra costs are incorrect, since by moving up to the Open Zonal she would have vacated her Women's Zonal position, entitling a reserve to take that place and hence meaning that instead of four freely accommodated players Australia would now have five.)

It is also my view that Arianne's last-minute lobbying for a place in the Open caused substantial and unfair inconvenience to the organisers and I informed them that the views in her 22 Dec letter were neither endorsed by me nor by the ACF.

Arianne next comments "I wrote an email addressed to both the organizers and the ACF to try to discuss my concerns but got not even so much as an acknowledgement of receipt." I received no such email and no such email has been tabled as correspondence by the ACF, nor was any such email discussed when I raised the matter at the January 8 ACF Council meeting. The next I heard from Arianne about the matter was in fact her letter to the organisers of 22 December. That's not to say no such email exists, but it would be interesting to know who it was sent to (assuming it was sent and not just written!) and whether there was any attempt to follow up the lack of reply.

If anyone thinks that strong female players unable to qualify for conditions otherwise should be eligible for free conditions at Open Zonals to encourage women's chess to become stronger, that is fine. But the way to go about securing that is to start lobbying FIDE years in advance of when you are aiming for the change to take place, and to ask your national federation to assist you in that process (again, well in advance).

The way to go about securing that is not to reinvent the wheel of how free accommodation in FIDE Zonals is awarded a couple of months out from the tournament, in the process inconveniencing both your own national officebearers and the hosts. Especially not when you follow that up by criticising people who did not create the current system when you should really be just apologising for wasting people's time by pursuing your campaign for reform in such a disorganised manner.

----------------------------------------------------------------

PS I agree with Alex that the ACF website needs work. The current webmaster has been intending to hand it over for a fair time now but has been waiting until we can find a replacement. Ideally we need someone who is not hopelessly commercially conflicted and who can improve the website through active soliciting of material along the lines of what Ian Rout has done with the newsletter. One correction though: the reason the website gives Slavica Sarai in 2003 as the last Australian Womens Champion is not that it is out of date, but because that is actually true - the revised conditions for the title to be awarded have not been met since then.

As for ratings, maybe he should keep an eye on the current upgrade.

Adamski
19-02-2011, 11:30 PM
I believe everything between her name in bold and centred through to her name in normal weight and left justified almost at the end are Arianne's "rant". The complaints about the website being out of date are before that and I assume are the words of the blogger, Aleks Wohl. Aleks also has a sentence between Arianne signing off and the copy of the letter.
Reading it again, I am sure Barry is correct. Arianne did not mention the ACF web site's lack of currency: Alex (he prefers that spelling he told me) did!

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2011, 11:31 PM
Arianne has some good points. From the start of her rant looks like ACF web site needs some updating. I think top Aus woman player should not have to fork out $250 to play in Zonal.

Garvin is 100% correct as my reply shows. She would not have had to fork out $250 to play in the Womens Zonal for which she applied and was selected. The problem is she wanted to play for free in the Open Zonal for which she didn't apply and hence wasn't (and wouldn't have been) selected.

As it happens if she had applied for the Open Zonal in time she would have been first reserve and would have then played had anything prevented either Smerdon or Xie from taking their places. Note that Zhao was not an applicant for selection.


And please don't shoot the messenger, namely, moi!

On the contrary, thanks very much for bringing it to our attention.

Rincewind
19-02-2011, 11:37 PM
Reading it again, I am sure Barry is correct. Arianne did not mention the ACF web site's lack of currency: Alex (he prefers that spelling he told me) did!

It certainly makes the possessive much easier to manage.

ER
20-02-2011, 12:47 AM
the way punctuation works these days it's hard to tell anyway!

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 12:57 AM
Lets not scratch the surface - The real message from Arianne is - if ACF wants chess to develop it has to be a) professional about it (e.g. updated website) and 2) provide as much support (financial included) to our top players.

In this particular instance she was not asking for much. I see no reason why NZ organisers need to support an AUS player but ACF surely should've done something to help her out.

Lets be brutally honest...zonals (in their current shape and form) are open to a) few title contenders and b) lots and lots of chess tourists. For instance in the women's zonal - there was only 1 2100+ player. Why would Arianne come all the way from Europe to play some beginners - you do not spend so much money..then play 1000-1500 rated players (and some of the women's zonal participants were that weak). You can call the tournament ''Zonal'' or ''Continental Championship'' or ''World Cup Qualifier'' - it will not make them play any better!

You can give the players WIM and WFM titles...still nothing will change. What Arianne needs is some support and appreciation! It may be a politically incorrect thing to do...but it makes more sense to support 1 2250 rated player to play in the open section and develop her skills than to waste resources on weaker players!

One of the reasons that Bobby Cheng was able to achieve his world junior title (an unprecedented achievement for an Australian :clap: ) is great support from his family. If not for his family, he would not even go to the world junior cause its an expensive trip.

To sum up, in my opinion Arianne made a correct decision to go to Gibraltar instead. The tournament is far better for her chess development and why should she even bother to play in zonal and represent Australia if Australia does nothing for her? The formula '' do not think what your country can do for you, think what you can do for your country'' is fake - it should work both ways! Untill then, we will be a country of chess tourists!

Desmond
20-02-2011, 08:34 AM
Lets not scratch the surface - The real message from Arianne is - if ACF wants chess to develop it has to be a) professional about it (e.g. updated website) and 2) provide as much support (financial included) to our top players.

In this particular instance she was not asking for much. I see no reason why NZ organisers need to support an AUS player but ACF surely should've done something to help her out.

Lets be brutally honest...zonals (in their current shape and form) are open to a) few title contenders and b) lots and lots of chess tourists. For instance in the women's zonal - there was only 1 2100+ player. Why would Arianne come all the way from Europe to play some beginners - you do not spend so much money..then play 1000-1500 rated players (and some of the women's zonal participants were that weak). You can call the tournament ''Zonal'' or ''Continental Championship'' or ''World Cup Qualifier'' - it will not make them play any better!

You can give the players WIM and WFM titles...still nothing will change. What Arianne needs is some support and appreciation! It may be a politically incorrect thing to do...but it makes more sense to support 1 2250 rated player to play in the open section and develop her skills than to waste resources on weaker players!

One of the reasons that Bobby Cheng was able to achieve his world junior title (an unprecedented achievement for an Australian :clap: ) is great support from his family. If not for his family, he would not even go to the world junior cause its an expensive trip.

To sum up, in my opinion Arianne made a correct decision to go to Gibraltar instead. The tournament is far better for her chess development and why should she even bother to play in zonal and represent Australia if Australia does nothing for her? The formula '' do not think what your country can do for you, think what you can do for your country'' is fake - it should work both ways! Untill then, we will be a country of chess tourists!
What exactly do you propose ACF should have done differently? Written her a cheque when she asked in November?

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 09:38 AM
What exactly do you propose ACF should have done differently? Written her a cheque when she asked in November?

Actually, It would be a good idea!

Basil
20-02-2011, 09:44 AM
Wets! Clue-free, self-absorbed twits. Which part of due process do you planks struggle with the most - the fact that it creates a level playing field or the fact that each decision is traceable and transparent?

If the reporting is true and complete, I suggest Alex and Arianne go back to the self-absorbed, self-stimulation they clearly prefer (and that which Baron is always first to champion).

Incidentally, should anyone think this post to be crass, it is intended to proportionately reflect the crassness of the self-absorption to begin with.

Desmond
20-02-2011, 10:26 AM
Actually, It would be a good idea!
No. No it wouldn't be.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 10:36 AM
Actually, It would be a good idea!

No it wouldn't. Suppose the ACF pays the entry fees and board and lodging of one of its leading female players to play in the Open division of a zonal. That sets a precedent that's a recipe for being bombarded with requests from other leading female players to do the same, as well as from adult male players who are markedly stronger than the leading female players but didn't qualify, from parents of juniors who think the development of their offspring is more important (etc). Where and on what criteria do you draw the line?

This was an event run under FIDE conditions in another country. The mindset that considers this to be primarily an ACF issue is beyond me.

There are serious systematic problems with the Oceania Womens Zonals. The fact that they are so weak that Australia's strongest female player chooses to give up a potential Womens World Championships qualifying spot (not that she played when she qualified last time anyway) is a sign that something is amiss and it is a natural consequence of creating a weak zone.


It may be a politically incorrect thing to do...but it makes more sense to support 1 2250 rated player to play in the open section and develop her skills than to waste resources on weaker players!

Again, why her? Why not a stronger male player who didn't qualify, why not a junior whose skills are developing more rapidly and who may go on to be a GM? I just don't think you have thought this out.


One of the reasons that Bobby Cheng was able to achieve his world junior title (an unprecedented achievement for an Australian :clap: ) is great support from his family. If not for his family, he would not even go to the world junior cause its an expensive trip.

Indeed. And many other juniors go to such events with much appreciated support from their families and fundraising. Those who are selected representatives receive conditions. Those who are not selected representatives do not, as a general rule, expect that the organisers or the ACF should provide them with what they were not qualified for.


To sum up, in my opinion Arianne made a correct decision to go to Gibraltar instead. The tournament is far better for her chess development and why should she even bother to play in zonal and represent Australia if Australia does nothing for her?

The point of Zonals isn't development. The primary point of Zonals is qualifying players for the World Championship or World Cup. Players just seeking development by competing against strong players have many other events, including Australian events, they can play in.


The formula '' do not think what your country can do for you, think what you can do for your country'' is fake - it should work both ways! Untill then, we will be a country of chess tourists!

And most likely if we follow your suggestions then the ACF will wind up either bankrupt or continually accused of arbitrary favoritism.

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 12:12 PM
Michael, the ACF is looking for organisers for the 2012 Australian Championship. How about you be main organiser? You seem to think it is so easy to give everything to everyone who wants it, in this case Arianne.

I would love to see you in the position of having to actually be responsible for the amount of money being spent and only having a limited amount of money to spend it on to run a chess tournament.

I directly challenge your comments here as I think if it was your tournament budget that was making these decisions you would not be making the same decisions that you are claiming others should make.

In fact, if the organisers had given Arianne all the privileges she wanted, I think you would be the first to jump up and down about a player with 'only' a 2100 rating receiving entitlements that no other 2100 male would get and that the only reason she was getting those entitlements is based on her gender.

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 12:58 PM
Michael, the ACF is looking for organisers for the 2012 Australian Championship. How about you be main organiser? You seem to think it is so easy to give everything to everyone who wants it, in this case Arianne.

I would love to see you in the position of having to actually be responsible for the amount of money being spent and only having a limited amount of money to spend it on to run a chess tournament.

I directly challenge your comments here as I think if it was your tournament budget that was making these decisions you would not be making the same decisions that you are claiming others should make.

In fact, if the organisers had given Arianne all the privileges she wanted, I think you would be the first to jump up and down about a player with 'only' a 2100 rating receiving entitlements that no other 2100 male would get and that the only reason she was getting those entitlements is based on her gender.

Aha, here comes ''Shirty-style'' suggestion for me to be an organizer :)

In Australia -2100 is a ''big deal'' for a female player. However, would the money go to male chess players - it would be good too! 30 years ago - Australia was one of the top 3 chess-playing nations in Asia along with Indonasia and Phillipines. Today, there are: India, China, Vietnam all well ahead of us. Even countries like Bangladesh are not significantly behind Australia. Majority of the top junior players retires or semi-retires once they hit senior ranks. Why? Well, why not? what is there to play for?

Is our chess getting worse? not really but others are getting better! Why are they getting better? Well, If I suggest that their national federations are doing something for the game - your response will be ''why do not you run for ACF presidency'' :).

ER
20-02-2011, 01:32 PM
hehe you people have to understand the potential behind Arianne!
The lady is an asset for Australian Chess.
Her playing strength
Her star status
Her attractive personality
Her relationship to one of the best players in the world
Her connections in the international scene
Should be enough to establish her as an Australian chess ambassador!
Just think positively and ask yourselves:
Who is the player who would attract more publicity in overseas tournaments?
Who would be more successful in approaching a sponsor for chess events?
Who would be more likely to be a role model for female chess players?
It's so funny when the silly thuggish quartet (they 're all my friends anyway so I can tell them off :owned: ) orchestrate (*) their attacks against Michael when he expresses in a not so elegant way thoughts that we all know are correct!
On the other hand, I understand that
THE way bureaucracy works in ACF doesn't allow for direct initiatives
THE volunteer nature of ACF's executive doesn't allow for "professionalism"to Michael's liking.
COMMENDABLE moves by ACF such as the great decision to update the organisation's support for our Olympic teams from bi annual to annual thus doubling the relevant financial assistance go unrecognised and no Michael has come out to applause the move!
Then again, criticism comes out easier than offering a helping hand and you can't please them all. After all this is the reality of Chess Australia 2011! Enjoy!

(*) Expect more of the kind in the Tornelo thread. :P

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 01:51 PM
Aha, here comes ''Shirty-style'' suggestion for me to be an organizer :)When you tell other organisers how to do things and what decisions they should make, but you do not do it yourself, then you leave yourself wide open to that type of retort.


In Australia -2100 is a ''big deal'' for a female player. However, would the money go to male chess players - it would be good too! 30 years ago - Australia was one of the top 3 chess-playing nations in Asia along with Indonasia and Phillipines. Today, there are: India, China, Vietnam all well ahead of us. Even countries like Bangladesh are not significantly behind Australia. Government funding, being recognised by Government as some kind of sport and population would be some of the main reasons, I would hazard a guess.

We have none of those. To use a different sport analogy, imagine where our physical sport athletes would be if they did not receive large wads of government money, programs etc. It is highly likely that we would be much further down the totem pole, especially at the Olympics.

We are also hurt by our small population being so far apart. If we had all twenty million people living in Sydney, then running chess tournaments would be so much easier.


Majority of the top junior players retires or semi-retires once they hit senior ranks. Why? Well, why not? what is there to play for? This topic gets repeated so often. Feel free to choose from one of the other hundred threads on here.


Is our chess getting worse? not really but others are getting better! Why are they getting better? Well, If I suggest that their national federations are doing something for the game - your response will be ''why do not you run for ACF presidency'' :).I have nothing to add here, but just replying so you do not think I have chosen to avoid this reply :)

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 01:59 PM
Aha, here comes ''Shirty-style'' suggestion for me to be an organizer :)

In Australia -2100 is a ''big deal'' for a female player. However, would the money go to male chess players - it would be good too! 30 years ago - Australia was one of the top 3 chess-playing nations in Asia along with Indonasia and Phillipines. Today, there are: India, China, Vietnam all well ahead of us. Even countries like Bangladesh are not significantly behind Australia. Majority of the top junior players retires or semi-retires once they hit senior ranks. Why? Well, why not? what is there to play for?

Is our chess getting worse? not really but others are getting better! Why are they getting better? Well, If I suggest that their national federations are doing something for the game - your response will be ''why do not you run for ACF presidency'' :).

Michael

As usual, your posts on this thread have done nothing to advance the cause of Australian chess but have been ill-informed and impractical comments and a refusal to be involved in anything constructive.

The Australian Championship has not been held in Victoria since 2002. There was a suggestion that 2012 might be the year though nothing exists to show that it is likely to happen. All recent such events have been held in Sydney because Sydneysiders have shown the nous and willingness to organise them. While Melbournians continue to take your attitude they will keep on being held elsewhere.

DJ

ER
20-02-2011, 02:02 PM
Michael

As usual, your posts on this thread have done nothing to advance the cause of Australian chess but have been ill-informed and impractical comments and a refusal to be involved in anything constructive.

The Australian Championship has not been held in Victoria since 2002. There was a suggestion that 2012 might be the year though nothing exists to show that it is likely to happen. All recent such events have been held in Sydney because Sydneysiders have shown the nous and willingness to organise them. While Melbournians continue to take your attitude they will keep on being held elsewhere.

DJ

LOL is it a DNA (Sydney vs Melbourne) matter pope? :P Sheit I should have said quintet! I had forgotten about you! :P I liked the cute patronising style though! :)

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 02:26 PM
It's so funny when the silly thuggish quartet (they 're all my friends anyway so I can tell them off :owned: )

We can do that to you too. :owned: :P :P


orchestrate their attacks against Michael when he expresses in a not so elegant way thoughts that we all know are correct!

Michael hasn't expressed anything that anyone knows is correct. Feel free to rewrite his hopelessly confused case as something absolutely different if you think that it will help him.

Michael has said the ACF needs to "provide as much support (financial included) to our top players." OK, there are about fifty of them who are stronger players than she is, so is this really about supporting strong players or is it about picking favourites in pursuit of reverse sexism and tabloid media bites?

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 02:43 PM
Well, I do not want to be ''elegant'' when expressing an obvious point about ACF :). Not sure about others...but I do not need ACF...and neither does my club (other than for rating our events ...and that we could do ourselves if allowed).

RE chess in melbourne..its actually getting better! Interclub is back and Melbourne Chess Club is going from strength to strength!

And now back to the thread topic: We got top players (Arianne and Alex) disillusioned by lack of support they get...next ollimpiad is coming in 1.5 years...lets hope by then a corporate sponsor is found and at least for once top players will not have to pay their way!

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 03:02 PM
Well, I do not want to be ''elegant'' when expressing an obvious point about ACF :).

If your point's so "obvious" why can't you express it clearly? In the context of Arianne's comments, what is your point? Or is it just that if someone moans about the ACF you join in and the disconnect between your moans and theirs doesn't matter?


Not sure about others...but I do not need ACF...and neither does my club (other than for rating our events ...and that we could do ourselves if allowed).

You can run your own rating list all you like. MCC do that for their Allegros.


...lets hope by then a corporate sponsor is found and at least for once top players will not have to pay their way!

In 2008 the Appeal went so well that even without major corporate sponsorship we still almost covered the players' travel costs. In 2010 we covered more than half of the players' costs. It would indeed be ideal to cover the entirity (as I believe occurred when Jason Lyons got one-off corporate sponsorship) but what has been done in the last two events is light years ahead of the cases when we only raised a few thousand dollars.

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 03:57 PM
LOL is it a DNA (Sydney vs Melbourne) matter pope? :P Sheit I should have said quintet! I had forgotten about you! :P I liked the cute patronising style though! :)

You may mock JaK but what I am saying is fact and in no way patronising. Perhaps you forget that I lived in Melbourne for 13 years and was a VCA Committee member and Secretary for some of that time. That puts me several steps ahead of you and the Gipsy just on the Victorian scene.

DJ

sleepless
20-02-2011, 04:49 PM
So...
The ACF website needs updating. Action: Email the webmaster with content including articles and images. Ask for removal of outdated info like the banned players list, 2011 Aus Open advert etc. Check all site links and remove inactive ones. Investigate best practice with a view to redoing the site layout. Official ACF announcements to be disseminated through state associations or via the website, rather than through blogs and forums.

Representative Players need financial support. Action: Establish a foundation. Philanthropy is alive and well in Australia. Invite donations and bequests by adding that option to ACF entry forms. Set aside a portion of rating fees.

thebuff
20-02-2011, 04:52 PM
{Arianne's 'final' comment on Alex's blog}

Arianne said...

Okay, this is my last comment, which I have also pasted on TCG. I am going to comment briefly because I’ve had enough of the criticisms that have come out of some simple rant. It’s pathetic and a waste of time.

Firstly, this rant that Alex asked for IS NOT directed at anyone in particular (although sure, I've taken a jibe at a few people, it's a rant on the blogosphere, get over yourselves).

I don’t understand why people like The Closet Grandmaster have tried to pitch it as me versus the ACF. This is a total mis-representation.

I’ve just come back from a bike ride around the lake to discover something called ‘Chess Chat’ and the pathetic narrow-minded arguments put forth there. People like Kevin Bonham should realize that it’s Sunday and it’s sunny (a rare occasion in Canberra) – why waste it behind the key board defending/attacking molecular details in my rant?

My musings are on the big picture, on the entire system of women’s chess tournaments as a market and analyzing its characteristics. It seems that nobody has even attempted to offer commentary or criticisms of this have they? Just shows that people are more interested in self-defense rather than seeing the point of the argument and trying to understand the theory put forth. I welcome criticism and it is essential for progress – but I am not interested in people zoning in on sections that suit them (i.e. the zonals – who cares? It’s over, and I am not concerned about it, and I am not that important to go into frivolous discussions over it).

So stick to the subject, try to comprehend my argument and feel free to critique the theory (not me or my beef with the zonals – it gets boring fast – and it’s not the point of this article).

19 February 2011 22:42

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 05:24 PM
{Arianne's 'final' comment on Alex's blog}

Arianne said...

Okay, this is my last comment, which I have also pasted on TCG. I am going to comment briefly because I’ve had enough of the criticisms that have come out of some simple rant. It’s pathetic and a waste of time.

Firstly, this rant that Alex asked for IS NOT directed at anyone in particular (although sure, I've taken a jibe at a few people, it's a rant on the blogosphere, get over yourselves).

I don’t understand why people like The Closet Grandmaster have tried to pitch it as me versus the ACF. This is a total mis-representation.

I’ve just come back from a bike ride around the lake to discover something called ‘Chess Chat’ and the pathetic narrow-minded arguments put forth there. People like Kevin Bonham should realize that it’s Sunday and it’s sunny (a rare occasion in Canberra) – why waste it behind the key board defending/attacking molecular details in my rant?

My musings are on the big picture, on the entire system of women’s chess tournaments as a market and analyzing its characteristics. It seems that nobody has even attempted to offer commentary or criticisms of this have they? Just shows that people are more interested in self-defense rather than seeing the point of the argument and trying to understand the theory put forth. I welcome criticism and it is essential for progress – but I am not interested in people zoning in on sections that suit them (i.e. the zonals – who cares? It’s over, and I am not concerned about it, and I am not that important to go into frivolous discussions over it).

So stick to the subject, try to comprehend my argument and feel free to critique the theory (not me or my beef with the zonals – it gets boring fast – and it’s not the point of this article).

19 February 2011 22:42

Big picture!!!! T Very good point by Arianne - thats what all of us need to see!

Basil
20-02-2011, 05:27 PM
Okay, this is my last comment ...
I doubt that very much.


although sure, I've taken a jibe at a few people, it's a rant on the blogosphere, get over yourselves.
You're being attacked back. Get over yourself.


I’ve just come back from a bike ride around the lake to discover something called ‘Chess Chat’ and the pathetic narrow-minded arguments put forth there.

Between posts I've been swimming with my boys. You'll be surprised you don't arrive here with dibs on getting out and getting a life. Get over yourself.

And you didn't discover chesschat - someone with its skirt in a flurried tizz would have been on the phone gesticulating hysterically at you. No one's buying your affected ennui (except possibly some teenagers and Elliott).

Garvinator
20-02-2011, 05:44 PM
Okay, this is my last comment, which I have also pasted on TCG. I am going to comment briefly because I’ve had enough of the criticisms that have come out of some simple rant. It’s pathetic and a waste of time.

Firstly, this rant that Alex asked for IS NOT directed at anyone in particular (although sure, I've taken a jibe at a few people, it's a rant on the blogosphere, get over yourselves).

I don’t understand why people like The Closet Grandmaster have tried to pitch it as me versus the ACF. This is a total mis-representation.

I’ve just come back from a bike ride around the lake to discover something called ‘Chess Chat’ and the pathetic narrow-minded arguments put forth there. People like Kevin Bonham should realize that it’s Sunday and it’s sunny (a rare occasion in Canberra) – why waste it behind the key board defending/attacking molecular details in my rant?

My musings are on the big picture, on the entire system of women’s chess tournaments as a market and analyzing its characteristics. It seems that nobody has even attempted to offer commentary or criticisms of this have they? Just shows that people are more interested in self-defense rather than seeing the point of the argument and trying to understand the theory put forth. I welcome criticism and it is essential for progress – but I am not interested in people zoning in on sections that suit them (i.e. the zonals – who cares? It’s over, and I am not concerned about it, and I am not that important to go into frivolous discussions over it).

So stick to the subject, try to comprehend my argument and feel free to critique the theory (not me or my beef with the zonals – it gets boring fast – and it’s not the point of this article).
Some people have replied to your claims by putting some facts into context or have asked further questions about some of your claims that in essence you were dudded by the ACF and the Oceania Zonal organisers.

Since you have chosen to air your grievances on a blog, you can not then claim to be left alone when others questions you in the same manner ie internet.

You had another option, send your list of complaints to the people who could actually do something about it.

This is what happens when you have a rant on the internet and post incorrect, some might say false, information. Those people will respond because they do not like having their reputations tarnished by someone sprouting incorrect information.

It seems you just wanted to attack a few people, say poor me and then have not liked it when others responded to you.

I am certain that had most people's replies had been of the nature of- You are great Arianne, telling the truth as always, go Arianne, stick it up the ACF- then I am sure you would not be calling for cease and desist and it is only a blog rant, get over yourselves.

Rincewind
20-02-2011, 06:33 PM
And please don't shoot the messenger, namely, moi!

But I am happy to engage in constructive debate and discussion ..... or not!

These sorts of threads are great for the board as they usually provide a catalyst for new user signups - for example thebuff probably wouldn't have signed up were it not for this thread. I say bring it on!

Of course the rantee has to expect people will correct statements they believe to be misleading or incorrect. Which is why it is good to have these discussions out in the open.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 06:45 PM
I'm not sure if thebuff is actually Arianne as opposed to someone just posting her comments.

Anyway I replied as follows:


Arianne, there's an extremely obvious double standard here. You say your comments are only a RANT on a blog and therefore those criticising should get over it, but you've "had enough" of the criticisms in response, and we should "get over ourselves". But surely our counter-criticisms are themselves only comments (RANTs or otherwise) on blogs, and if you don't like the counter-criticism then by your own logic you should get over it too instead of complaining about the response.

It's up to you how you spend your time and whether you choose to respond now or not. If the sun being out in Canberra is a reason for not responding today, just don't respond. Save it for a rainy day or just don't bother. You're not obliged to respond to counter-criticisms of your RANT. They're only comments on a blog, after all. Anyway, lucky for some. I intended going out in the field today but every time the sun came out and I threatened to do so another layer of Gloop accompanied by very strong winds swept down off Mt Wellington and told me that if I would be some risk of having a tree fall on me should I persist with such a dubious plan.

Big-picture musings are fine, and I actually agree with a fair bit of what you said about the way female players are treated by the media including parts of the chess media. But on my reading your incorporation of complaints about the Zonal and the ACF's performance relevant to it just completely contradicts the big picture you're putting forward.

If the zonals are a who-cares matter that is over, then why on earth did you still complain about them in the first place? And if the counter-criticisms about your comments about the Zonal are bugging you then why not just acknowledge that your attacks on the ACF and others concerning the Zonal were just incorrect in the first place?

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 07:03 PM
Some hints for Arianne about cycling in Canberra.

1. Cycling around the lake is for bunnies.
2. Never ride in the weekend unless you're racing - it's when the hoons are out.
3. It's often sunny in Canberra - you just don't spend enough time here.
4. Pick your day - generally one or two days in autumn are perfect. The rest are either too cold, too hot or too windy (and occasionally too wet).
4. Don't worry about Kevin Bonham - he lives in Tasmania.
5. if really desperate ride with a group such as the Mice - Mature Individuals Cycling Easily - who are almost all retirees and actually ride like the clappers to burn you off as most cycling groups do. They ride from my place sometimes but I'm not fit enough to keep up so I usually give it a miss.
6. Don't take a chess book or computer while cycling. Though road racing may be chess on wheels, as has often been said, consulting chess books while riding is not a good idea.
7. Otherwise do as you suggest and go cycling on a sunny day rather than worrying about insoluble problems like (women's) chess in Australia.

Finally, if you're free on Monday 14 March, how about the Big Canberra Bike Ride which is not big (25km) or Amy's Ride (for the Amy Gillett Foundation) which is (either 65 or 105 km with hills). It's organised by Pedal Power ACT.

DJ

ER
20-02-2011, 08:14 PM
You may mock JaK but what I am saying is fact and in no way patronising. Perhaps you forget that I lived in Melbourne for 13 years and was a VCA Committee member and Secretary for some of that time. That puts me several steps ahead of you and the Gipsy just on the Victorian scene.

DJ

oops apologies I should have capitalised the P in pope, after all give or take a couple of years we are in the same age group! I 've never doubted your status and contribution as a valuable member of the australian chess community, however for arguement's sake be against the establishment just for once. You can't be THAT conservative! :D

ER
20-02-2011, 08:20 PM
And you didn't discover chesschat - someone with its skirt in a flurried tizz would have been on the phone gesticulating hysterically at you. No one's buying your affected ennui (except possibly some teenagers and Elliott).

:lol: ok I 'll get you for that Duggan!

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 08:40 PM
oops apologies I should have capitalised the P in pope, after all give or take a couple of years we are in the same age group! I 've never doubted your status and contribution as a valuable member of the australian chess community, however for arguement's sake be against the establishment just for once. You can't be THAT conservative! :D

Sorry! I seem to have lost the thread of these posts. Looking back, I''m not sure I understood the thrust of first one and I'm still in the dark. Moreover, this one has me foxed too. I'm often against the establishment though in the case of the ACF the wall is reinforced concrete rather than the usual brick :) .

DJ

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 08:43 PM
hehe you people have to understand the potential behind Arianne!
The lady is an asset for Australian Chess.
Her playing strength
Her star status
Her attractive personality
Her relationship to one of the best players in the world
Her connections in the international scene
Should be enough to establish her as an Australian chess ambassador!
Just think positively and ask yourselves:
Who is the player who would attract more publicity in overseas tournaments?
Who would be more successful in approaching a sponsor for chess events?
Who would be more likely to be a role model for female chess players?

Of course what the mainstream media are really most interested in in the case of Arianne is racy nightclub punchup scandals, Dancing With The Stars controversies and glamorous photoshoots. They don't give a rat's about most of the stuff above except to the extent that it adds to the tabloid melodrama, and Arianne's own attitude to the kind of "attention" you get for being a "star" female player is decidedly unimpressed:


Although women’s chess in general (especially if you’re under 2400) has been relegated as boring, shallow and ‘inferior’ (who indeed would be interested in that?), subjective enjoyment of the game cannot be questioned – so when I sit there at the start of my game, however inferior and unimportant it may be, I do not appreciate a photographer coyly hiding behind my opponent, gesturing to his camera and mouthing the command ‘smile’ while refusing to get out of my frame of reference until I do so. [This is just to state a recurring example which I experience in nearly every game, an experience that I’m sure many women in chess have frustratingly had to endure – actually, maybe some chicks like it – but I can tell you it’s thoroughly annoying]. Looking back on it now, the obsession with my so-called ‘looks’ bordered on public pedophilia, and fused with certain publicly-constructed scandals culminated into a pathetic orgasm between certain attention-starved (bored?) chess media outlets and individuals with nothing better to talk about. So back to the subject: the dilemma posed above is not new, many girls experience it. This dilemma is a premise to argue for the reasons why the women’s chess tournament market, so to speak, is like it is and why it keeps on being so. It should also be noted that this dilemma is sustained by the chess media (Chessbase gets 5 stars for this and kudos to Chess Vibes for so far, from my observations, refraining to do so).

And she is dead right about Chessbase, which irritatingly seems to believe that the primary function of women in chess is the provision of eye candy for their website.

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2011, 09:15 PM
Of course what the mainstream media are really most interested in in the case of Arianne is racy nightclub punchup scandals, Dancing With The Stars controversies and glamorous photoshoots. They don't give a rat's about most of the stuff above except to the extent that it adds to the tabloid melodrama, and Arianne's own attitude to the kind of "attention" you get for being a "star" female player is decidedly unimpressed:



And she is dead right about Chessbase, which irritatingly seems to believe that the primary function of women in chess is the provision of eye candy for their website.

Sadly, this approach is not confined to chess. For many years before the virtual collapse of the major labels' classical music catalogues, young glamorous females were the order of the day and that aspect above their ability as musicians was stressed. Indeed some of them were (and are) excellent players - among the best in the world - but equally some disappeared through "a negative imbalance" between their talent and their glamour. Still the record companies didn't learn. They even tried this tactic with men but at least one refused a new contract rather than be glamourised!

DJ

MichaelBaron
20-02-2011, 10:51 PM
Of course what the mainstream media are really most interested in in the case of Arianne is racy nightclub punchup scandals, Dancing With The Stars controversies and glamorous photoshoots. .
Its not her fault that she is beautiful....And she is also famouse for her chess!
One should not forget that she can give chess simul to all her critiques on this chat! In fact so can Alex Wohl and so can I..and so can most others who understand who what professional approach to chess is all about :)

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 12:06 AM
In fact so can Alex Wohl and so can I..and so can most others who understand who what professional approach to chess is all about :)

If you do understand a professional approach to chess administration I'm yet to see any sign of it on this particular thread. Anyone with the foggiest clue about a "professional" approach would have some idea about issues like fair process rather than playing favourites and creating arbitrary precedents.

Skulte
21-02-2011, 11:04 AM
...lets hope by then a corporate sponsor is found

I found it interesting reading this chessbase article that it was DeloitteAustralia that provided the prizefund for this international competition.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7020 :owned:

Rincewind
21-02-2011, 01:06 PM
If you do understand a professional approach to chess administration I'm yet to see any sign of it on this particular thread. Anyone with the foggiest clue about a "professional" approach would have some idea about issues like fair process rather than playing favourites and creating arbitrary precedents.

Anyone who believes there is a correlation between ability at a sport and professionalism in that sport would have to assert that (in their prime) OJ Simpson was a paragon of professionalism in football, Mike Tyson a expert on professionalism in boxing and Hanse Cronje was the consummate professional cricketer.

ER
21-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Of course what the mainstream media are really most interested in in the case of Arianne is racy nightclub punchup scandals, Dancing With The Stars controversies and glamorous photoshoots. They don't give a rat's about most of the stuff above except to the extent that it adds to the tabloid melodrama, and Arianne's own attitude to the kind of "attention" you get for being a "star" female player is decidedly unimpressed:

Oh yeah and poor Arianne doesn't do anything to reinforce that image yeah? Gimme a break!

http://www.google.com.au/images?q=arianne+caoili&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADRA_enAU400AU400&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=X-5hTeqiOIGIuAPu89SFAg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBEQ_AUoAQ&biw=1345&bih=467


And she is dead right about Chessbase, which irritatingly seems to believe that the primary function of women in chess is the provision of eye candy for their website

Poor girls, exploited by the (ed -add) male chauvinist, sexist system!!! Want me to give you another collection of pictures showing how they do their best to avoid being potrayed as eye candy?

(ed. add) This is real life in a real world: Attractive people of either sex attract people. Girls go wild over Magnus, so attraction is mutual and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! :)

MichaelBaron
21-02-2011, 03:38 PM
Anyone who believes there is a correlation between ability at a sport and professionalism in that sport would have to assert that (in their prime) OJ Simpson was a paragon of professionalism in football, Mike Tyson a expert on professionalism in boxing and Hanse Cronje was the consummate professional cricketer.

However, there is also no correlation between been bad at a particular sport...and professionalism :lol:

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 03:43 PM
So...
The ACF website needs updating. Action: Email the webmaster with content including articles and images. Ask for removal of outdated info like the banned players list, 2011 Aus Open advert etc.

Thanks for the suggestions.

At present I am trying to find out from other Exec members whether it is a case of the info not being sent or the info having been sent but updates not having yet been processed. If I don't hear anything soon I will send an update myself (said the little red hen).

As for the banned players list it actually needs updating as there is again a banned player.


Official ACF announcements to be disseminated through state associations or via the website, rather than through blogs and forums.

Actually the primary method for official ACF announcements to be distributed is through the ACF email newsletter. Dissemination of anything through state associations is a very unreliable method. This forum is a useful backup and can make a useful primary source when there is no time for any other method. The ACF does not distribute official announcements via blogs.


Representative Players need financial support. Action: Establish a foundation. Philanthropy is alive and well in Australia. Invite donations and bequests by adding that option to ACF entry forms.

Good ideas. Do you know anyone with the necessary skills and interests who might be interested in helping us set one up?


Set aside a portion of rating fees.

I think that spare money is usually better spent on running events here than on paying for specific individuals to play overseas. We are working towards a set fund type setup for that.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 04:28 PM
Oh yeah and poor Arianne doesn't do anything to reinforce that image yeah? Gimme a break!

Arianne seems as inconsistent about that as she seems to be about pretty much everything else she has said in this mini-saga. For chessplayers who choose to be public celebrities on stuff like Dancing With The Stars, chess-paparazzi playing smile-sweetly at the start of games sounds like an occupational hazard, unless the arbiter has the guts to ban them from the playing hall. But I'm making the point that the whole idea that Arianne is a big media star who the ACF can bounce off is really based around tabloid trash that she clearly has a love-hate relationship with, and that also seems to have a love-hate relationship with her. Is this really a sound ambassadorial pathway for the ACF? Would Arianne actually care more about promoting Australian chess if we mollycoddled in response to her RANT? I doubt it.


Poor girls, exploited by the sexist system!!! Want me to give you another collection of pictures showing how they do their best to avoid being potrayed as eye candy?

No. Of course some welcome the glamour side and even assist said website to fill its pages with meaningless photoshoots when it has no news to report - but that doesn't mean they're all like that. Indeed the world's strongest female player in history never showed much interest in that path.

ER
21-02-2011, 04:42 PM
... (fully agree in previous part)


But I'm making the point that the whole idea that Arianne is a big media star who the ACF can bounce off is really based around tabloid trash that she clearly has a love-hate relationship with, and that also seems to have a love-hate relationship with her. Is this really a sound ambassadorial pathway for the ACF? Would Arianne actually care more about promoting Australian chess if we mollycoddled in response to her RANT? I doubt it.
We can work toward it. Other sports do it! Our greatest (or one of the greatest anyway) ever sportsman, Sir Donald Bradman, promoted cricket as none else did and that was long, long, time ago! Thorpe did, Freeman did, why not Arianne? With a bit of help and mutual understanding everything can happen. As I stated previously, through her connections she can assist in bringing well known GMs here, much more successfully than other promoters.



Indeed the world's strongest female player in history never showed much interest in that path.

Fantastic example! :clap: :clap: :clap: The world's strongest female player in history doesn't even bother playing in female championships. She got great help by the Hungarian Chess Federation to participate in traditionally male events. That's what Arianne wants. Let's give her a chance!

As for othe female world champions, let me remind you of a 2004 Xmas picture of Alexandra Kosteniuk. No bad for a knight's dance huh?

http://www.kosteniuk.com/albums/xmas04/pictures/IMG_9069.html

Rincewind
21-02-2011, 06:10 PM
However, there is also no correlation between been bad at a particular sport...and professionalism :lol:

Indeed not and I never made any claim to that effect. However over the years the ACF has had the services of many professional administrators. Some of whom could host a simul but many of whom couldn't.

The point of my counterexamples was to disabuse the reader of the notion that a positive correlation does exist. The interests of elite players is an important part of the administration of any sport but acquiescing to the requests of every player with some claim to elite status or celebrity is not a recipe for success.

Promoting chess at all levels and increasing financial and other support of those at the elite level are goals which any reasonable member of the chess community ought to support. That is not at issue here, rather it seems to be about a particular individual's personal idea about how to best achieve that being impractical in the context of the situation.

Rincewind
21-02-2011, 06:13 PM
That's what Arianne wants. Let's give her a chance!

No one has denied Arianne that chance. She was perfectly capable of applying for representation in the Open division when nominations for selections was announced. She chose to not take that opportunity at the appropriate time.

Watto
21-02-2011, 07:48 PM
(ed. add) This is real life in a real world: Attractive people of either sex attract people. Girls go wild over Magnus, so attraction is mutual and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! :)
Maybe they do go wild over Magnus (do they?) but they don't place all their emphasis on his looks. Of course if you're attractive it's great to have it noticed once in a while - and to notice others. But with some bloggers and some major websites, when it comes to the younger female players their looks are pretty much all they are interested in... they might as well be saying (in fact I think they do!) "wow, isn't she amazing - sexy AND clever."

Arianne's various glamour shots do detract from her argument that she finds this sort of attention very annoying ... (but people change over time and they can't change decisions made earlier in life and sometimes they are just plain contradictory) but I still think her observations about this aspect of the chess scene are spot on and she's certainly someone in a position to know about it. Another aspect that worries me is that if the attention the young female chessplayers receive is mainly for their looks, and that attention fades as they get past the cute stage, as they get older it could well seem to them that their value to the chess scene fades along with their youthful looks. Which would be such a shame as chess is a game for life if you want it to be. I mean they're chessplayers, not fashion models. By the way, I'm only speculating. I was never a young chessplayer but I have occasionally wondered about this stuff when I've spectated at Olympiads and visited chess websites. I think it adds to the pressure when there are so few female chess players. In tennis, the pressure is no doubt on in a similar way but there are more of them to absorb it and they aren't outnumbered by the men (and players like Nadal are treated much the same.) Also, at least as much attention is paid to their tennis achievements as to their looks.

Possibly the most interesting point of Arianne's 'rant' for me was her argument in favour of eliminating the gender barriers. I must admit I've never been a big fan of women's prizes or separate tournaments (except when I win my $100 for coming fourth in the Women's GP event :P). Not in a mind sport. Our top academic awards in society are not split by gender so why in chess? As far as I know, it has not been definitively proven that women fundamentally have a lesser capacity for chess, not like in physical sports at any rate. To have separate titles, prizes and tournaments suggests that the genders have fundamentally different capabilities without exception. But there are exceptions. I wouldn't be all that surprised if a greater percentage of women are indeed temperamentally less suited to it but these weaknesses (in chess terms) in psychological makeup, temperament or approach would also seem to apply to the ton of weak male players out there. If we had the world's top female scientists, mathematicians, musicians etc playing chess, and in numbers equalling the men, we might well see quite a few more Judit Polgars and a lot more women being celebrated for their chess achievements. It's nice to dream.

Another idea I find interesting to think about: If all gender barriers were eliminated, there would be no separate women's event at the Olympiad. For the immediate future, female representation at the Olympiad would be reduced to a handful of players. A decision like this would cause outrage amongst the players and spectators, not to mention the media. I must admit that the idea of tossing out the female players is pretty terrible to contemplate ... it would be hard to argue in the short term that such a decision was advancing the cause of women in chess. Perhaps there's no need to follow the idea to its logical conclusion just yet. Interesting to think about though.

Garvinator
21-02-2011, 08:57 PM
Another idea I find interesting to think about: If all gender barriers were eliminated, there would be no separate women's event at the Olympiad. For the immediate future, female representation at the Olympiad would be reduced to a handful of players. A decision like this would cause outrage amongst the players and spectators, not to mention the media. I must admit that the idea of tossing out the female players is pretty terrible to contemplate ... it would be hard to argue in the short term that such a decision was advancing the cause of women in chess. Perhaps there's no need to follow the idea to its logical conclusion just yet. Interesting to think about though.Since this is a rant thread ;) I wonder what response this comment would receive if it was made by a male.

Watto
21-02-2011, 08:59 PM
Since this is a rant thread ;) I wonder what response this comment would receive if it was made by a male.
Well, it's received no responses yet but I would just think he was exploring ideas in a fairly level headed way :P

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2011, 09:45 PM
Another idea I find interesting to think about: If all gender barriers were eliminated, there would be no separate women's event at the Olympiad. For the immediate future, female representation at the Olympiad would be reduced to a handful of players. A decision like this would cause outrage amongst the players and spectators, not to mention the media.

Indeed; that bastion of discriminatory entry conditions the Bermuda Party would no longer exist!


Fantastic example! The world's strongest female player in history doesn't even bother playing in female championships. She got great help by the Hungarian Chess Federation to participate in traditionally male events. That's what Arianne wants. Let's give her a chance!

On her merits as a player or partly because she is female? In Polgar's case whoever was helping her did not have to answer that question. In Arianne's case while she is a strong player who could potentially still reach (non-Zonal) IM strength, we have at least seven males under 20 in this country who are arguably or definitely already stronger than she is at 24, and some of these are potential future GMs.

peter_parr
22-02-2011, 10:16 AM
The Australian Chess community welcomes the views of our leading players. IM Aleks Wohl is a former Australian Champion and the immediate past Australian Open Champion. Wohl is currently ranked no 6 on the FIDE Active rating list for Australia and is Australia’s most active player on the international circuit. Wohl is the only player in Australia’s top 10 from the FIDE active rating list Jan 2011 who will have an increased FIDE rating on 1 March 2011 FIDE list.

WIM Arianne Caoili is Australia’s highest rated female FIDE active player and played on top board for Australia at the 2010 Chess Olympiad. Arianne’s partner is Olympic Gold Medallist GM Levon Aronian (ARM) currently World no 3 with another rating increase due on the FIDE March 2011 rating list. If Aronian keeps increasing his rating he could become World no 1 – he is extremely close already. Levon has of course been to Australia and all players should be delighted that such a great player has a close association with Australia.

Let us address their concerns constructively. Firstly Wohl’s comments on the Australian Chess Federation Website are perfectly correct. Australian State Associations regularly update their websites as do many clubs. Wohl is critical that the ACF website does not list any of its national title-holders since 2007/8 and still lists Zhao and Smerdon as IM’s and titled players have not been amended since Oct 2007. I would add to this the lack of the list of Australian Masters – a life time title awarded by the Australian Chess Federation. Numerous players with lesser titles are listed in October 2007 but the Australian Masters who have held the title for many years and are in declining health are still not listed despite a number of guarantees in recent years that their names would be listed. The Council of the ACF does not itself organise any games of chess so updating the website with the basics should be a priority – it would only take one person a few hours surely?

(I started for NSWCA a page like this Personalia (http://www.nswca.org.au/personalia.html) - a similar ACF page combining all the states is essential).

The rating system is mentioned by Wohl. The Glicko ACF rating system has been in use for a decade in Australia. Literally many Thousands of paragraphs have been written over a ten year period by Bonham/Gletsos in support of the system assuring us it is the best most advanced and superior to Elo system and thoroughly reliable. A few days ago we were informed that every single game played by every single player in every rating period for all ten years has been amended giving an average upward rating of every player 73 points. (World chess would be in chaos if FIDE did this). The more important major problems with Glicko remain and no review permitted. An Elo type system is used worldwide and only in Australia is Glicko used where you can lose hundreds of rating points in a weekender or over 100 rating points in just one game. Australian chess has lost for ever a number of players due to Glicko. Australia stands alone – I do not accept the view that the whole world is wrong and Glicko is right. Wohl is our most experienced international player and is familiar with the practical side and importance of rating systems. His opinions are important to Australian amateurs.

Arianne refers to photographers. It is important that in any tournament the chief arbiter restricts all photos to the first five minutes of play for each round. TV crews etc. permitted with chief arbiter’s permission. I well remember the famous Australian chess player Dorothy Dibley telling me how fed up she was with photographers every day at the Warsaw Chess Olympiad – and she was only a spectator!

Wohl refers to prize funds frozen in time and a very weak Australian Open. His statement is correct. FIDE in their recent visit to Australia described Australia as backward. None of their ideas have been implemented. For many years there was a roster system for the Australian Championship and Australian Open to be held in various states. Each state had several years to prepare and organise venues and sponsorship. If we look at recent years all Australian Championships and Opens have been held in Sydney. The next Championship starts in about 300 days but where? The 150 players plus Australian Open Rapid Play in January 2011 was cancelled in a 500 seat venue! Due to a clash with an all-important ACF meeting. Common sense should have prevailed with both held in such a massive quality venue. What happened at the meeting? What decisions were made? Sydney has done a very good job in recent years running every major championship but if other states assisted by ACF had a 2 year lead up time local sponsorship would lead to increased prize funds and a stronger field. I thank Aleks for bringing the prize funds and weak open to our attention in the hope of a better future. It is of course unfortunate that expert fund raisers from Government and commercial sources such as IA Jason Lyons have left chess due to the current administration.

Now we come to the sub-zonal in New Zealand. The prize fund in a Men’s Zonal shall be at least 10,000 Swiss francs and at least 5000 Swiss francs for a women’s zonal as defined in the FIDE handbook. The events held in New Zealand by FIDE definition were not zonals they were in fact sub-zonals. If we look at the Jan 2011 FIDE rating list we can see that only one(Berezina) of the top ten women (active and inactive) entered the women’s sub-zonal. Arianne quite rightly wants to meet strong opposition to increase her standard of play. Australia should in my opinion lobby FIDE to return to the Asian zone and send only its top players to zonals in accordance with FIDE regulations. Unlimited numbers of beginners in zonals or sub-zonals are unknown in the FIDE handbook which only lists free accommodation for all participants who are all the selected players of their national federation. It is important for administrators to make decisions on important matters as they arise. WIM Caoili decided not to play in the women’s sub-zonal which was a very weak field by her standards – OK her decision.

I believe in the circumstances her request for a free entry (the sub-zone’s no 1 active women’s player) and possibly accommodation was a reasonable request. The organisers were required to provide free accommodation and free entry to representatives of three of the six countries in our women’s sub-zone and two countries in our open sub-zone that did not attend. There was no obligation on the NZ organisers to grant the request and there was no obligation for the ACF to finance the request. If a similar situation arises in the future I believe the ACF could and should negotiate with the organising federation and with the player to try and reach an amicable agreement . This does not open the floodgates for others. It is a unique case. Wohl and Caoili regularly receive conditions in international chess events in many countries. It is sad that when our champions suggest some conditions in our own sub-zone they are met by hostility.

Finally the Australian Chess Federation has accumulated funds of $ 100,000 plus (for further reading see my NSWCA President’s report (http://www.auschess.org.au/newsletter/issue/1012A.htm) to the Nov 2010 NSWCA AGM).

Interest in excess of $6000 is added annually in addition to substantial income from every state of Australia which pays the ACF 100 % of every rated game in Australia as well as other ACF fees. There are no plans to spend any of the income and the ACF itself organises no chess games. With few overheads the state associations very generously add substantially to ACF accumulated funds every year. My suggestion to States to reduce the excessive amounts it pays to ACF has not been accepted.

Aleks and Arianne thank you for your input. Note – in a true democracy if one person posts 20,000 lengthy messages in support of a motion and two persons post 0 messages against a motion the motion is defeated 2 – 1 – the number of messages being totally irrelevant. We must all remember that administrators are replaceable even after 30 years (ref Hosni - Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya-40 yrs) but our best chess players are not replaceable.

Denis_Jessop
22-02-2011, 11:51 AM
For many years there was a roster system for the Australian Championship and Australian Open to be held in various states. Each state had several years to prepare and organise venues and sponsorship. If we look at recent years all Australian Championships and Opens have been held in Sydney. The next Championship starts in about 300 days but where? The 150 players plus Australian Open Rapid Play in January 2011 was cancelled in a 500 seat venue! Due to a clash with an all-important ACF meeting. Common sense should have prevailed with both held in such a massive quality venue. What happened at the meeting? What decisions were made? Sydney has done a very good job in recent years running every major championship but if other states assisted by ACF had a 2 year lead up time local sponsorship would lead to increased prize funds and a stronger field.

Peter raises several issues in his post but I am responding only to this one.

The fact is that a roster for holding Australian Championships and Opens still exists but it is now virtually dead. The reason is that almost none of the State Associations given the right to exercise the option to hold the event in its allocated year has exercised that option. One practical reason may well be the expense involved in doing so. In this case Sydney organisers have an advantage as they are able to use venues at, I understand, no cost. Another may be that, in recent years, only events held in a major capital city have been well-attended. The matter of lead-up times is one that has concerned me for many years but it is virtually academic now as no potential organisers have put forward proposals more than a few months before the event. There is a strong argument for the ACF to run its own events but again this is not practical as it has no organisers of its own and must rely almost entirely on State Association and Club personnel to do it. The ACF is fully aware of the problem but the answers are not so clear. Peter's assumption that more lead-up time would lead to more sponsorship is clearly not the answer. Potential organisers are able to contact the ACF at any time but it's not very bright to undertake the obligation of holding an event before you have significant sponsorship promises.

Incidentally the Australian Rapid has not been held for the last two or three years and the holding of the ACF National Conference/Council meetings had nothing to do with that. For many years now those meetings and the Lighntning, which is arguably more popular than the Rapid, have been held on the same day.

DJ

MichaelBaron
22-02-2011, 01:17 PM
We must all remember that administrators are replaceable even after 30 years (ref Hosni - Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya-40 yrs) but our best chess players are not replaceable.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
This is something that everyone needs to understand. You can have ppl playing with idiotic rating systems (after all these funny postes how good Glicko is...everyone gets a rating increase - tells you something about the rating system), making stupid admin decisions, mocking our top chess players - the reality is...we got only one Smerdon, one Zhao, one Wohl and one Caoili - if these ppl do not play for Australia - nobody else can.

Re women's chess - I think one of the reasons that women's chess is now taken more seriously worldwide is ongoing increase in the playing strength of the top female players. Already many ladieshold male GM titles. I think more than 100 have male IM titles. Those who think that women's chess is about ''seeing some cute faces and hot bodies in chess clubs'' only are wrong! I've been playing some of the stronger (2200-2450 -rated) female players online quite alot recently and our matches are always very tense kind of struggles. My opponents are clearly master-level players and can clean up club level players with a lot of ease. Right now, Arianne and possibly Irina (even though Irina has not been playing that well lately) are the only Aus female chess playesr who are able to play at Master level. So they are kind of players who should be give all the support. Others - may have titles but are typical club level players. So why not use Arianne as a role model to encourage more girls to play chess. At the very top level male players are doing better than female players but at all the other levels (even national championship level) female players can be very competitive in many countries!

ER
22-02-2011, 01:35 PM
We must all remember that administrators are replaceable even after 30 years (ref Hosni - Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya-40 yrs) but our best chess players are not replaceable.

With all due respect, Peter your analogies here are unfortunate if not completely unsound!

In Victoria's case I wanted to see what major Chess Clubs like MCC or BHCC would have been like if it wasn't for the Greg Gattos, the Gerrit Hartlands and the Grant Szuvageses just to name a few!
These people who spent their energy, time and money in order to keep their chess clubs going are in many cases irreplaceable!
On the other hand our best players might not be easily replaceable but after 30 or 40 years aren't that irreplaceable either!


we got only one Smerdon, one Zhao, one Wohl and one Caoili - if these ppl do not play for Australia - nobody else can.
Are you sure you haven't neglected one more player here? We need at least four players for our olympic team! And don't tell me Caoli is good enough to play vs a whole female opposition team by herself? :doh: :uhoh: :hmm:

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 02:41 PM
This is something that everyone needs to understand. You can have ppl playing with idiotic rating systems (after all these funny postes how good Glicko is...everyone gets a rating increase - tells you something about the rating system),

I think you should make some effort to understand the rating system and the issues it tries to address before claiming it is idiotic. As discussed in another thread FIDE is thinking seriously that Elo is not the best rating system and in the Kaggle contest the vanilla glicko system outperformed the vanilla Elo system. Of course conservatism is a powerful force to overcome. Particularly in chess it seems.


making stupid admin decisions,

Actually the balanced view here is the specific decision were not stupid and in fact reasonable and in reality the only reasonable thing to do under the circumstances of the lateness of the request.


mocking our top chess players

I haven't seen any mocking of Arianne here but perhaps you mean someone else.


- the reality is...we got only one Smerdon, one Zhao, one Wohl and one Caoili - if these ppl do not play for Australia - nobody else can.

I fail to see what you are getting at here. The process is a competitive one and therefore is based on the premise that there are many candidates for the places available.

MichaelBaron
22-02-2011, 02:43 PM
Are you sure you haven't neglected one more player here? We need at least four players for our olympic team! And don't tell me Caoli is good enough to play vs a whole female opposition team by herself? :doh: :uhoh: :hmm:

I wish she could...

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Re Peter's latest defence of the mathematically discredited ELO pseudo-rating-system, he should be aware that in a prominent rating system competition recently held, over half the entries outperformed the ELO system, while a system that is very similar to Glicko finished second and a version of Glicko entered by its creator also performed very strongly (unlike the incorrectly specified version entered as a benchmark - but even that still outperformed ELO easily).

ELO is such a bad rating system that FIDE have actually sponsored a prize to find rating systems that perform better to it subject to some criteria that they have set. Obviously they realise that even without getting as fancy as Glicko there is a great likelihood that they can find a much better rating system.

Peter refers to the current changes in the ACF rating system. The fact here is that if we were still using ELO in the form it was being used in 2000, the ratings of leading young players would be generally much lower and the system would need a lot more than an average 73 point correction per player. The only reason this has not happened worldwide is FIDE's use of a very high rating floor. With this rating floor being removed in search of profit, over subsequent decades FIDE ratings will deflate if they continue to use ELO. I personally suspect the FIDE ELO system will be gone or greatly modified within 10-15 years.


For many years there was a roster system for the Australian Championship and Australian Open to be held in various states. Each state had several years to prepare and organise venues and sponsorship.

This roster system still exists. However the states generally don't exercise their options by submitting a proposal in time and hence these events are opened for general bidding. It just happens that in the last few years Sydney organisers have been very willing to put together well-run events while organisers from elsewhere haven't stepped up to the plate even when it has been their turn.


Sydney has done a very good job in recent years running every major championship but if other states assisted by ACF had a 2 year lead up time local sponsorship would lead to increased prize funds and a stronger field.

Those states whose turn it is on the roster do have this time if they want it. Indeed they can have a much longer time.


It is of course unfortunate that expert fund raisers from Government and commercial sources such as IA Jason Lyons have left chess due to the current administration.

I don't actually believe that's anywhere near the full story of why he left.


Australia should in my opinion lobby FIDE to return to the Asian zone and send only its top players to zonals in accordance with FIDE regulations.

I think there's a lot to be said for returning us to the Asian zone (although we would thus forfeit an easy entry route to the next stage of the FIDE cycles) but I don't believe it will happen.


Unlimited numbers of beginners in zonals or sub-zonals are unknown in the FIDE handbook which only lists free accommodation for all participants who are all the selected players of their national federation.

So? The purpose of those clauses is to say who gets free administration, not who can or can't enter the tournament.


If a similar situation arises in the future I believe the ACF could and should negotiate with the organising federation and with the player to try and reach an amicable agreement . This does not open the floodgates for others. It is a unique case.

Uniquely bad perhaps. Whether or not the Oceania Women's Zonal should even exist, the fact is that it does (whatever you want to call it) and the organisers were charged with running it.

The purpose of the Oceania Women's Zonal is supposed to be to qualify a player to represent the region in the Women's World Championships. What kind of a message does it send about the tournament if the organisers give the #1 female player in the region incentives to instead compete in the Open Zonal when she has not earned those incentives on merit?


Wohl and Caoili regularly receive conditions in international chess events in many countries. It is sad that when our champions suggest some conditions in our own sub-zone they are met by hostility.

The events for which they receive conditions are not remotely comparable to Oceania Zonals in economics or purpose so this argument is invalid.


There are no plans to spend any of the income

Bzzzzt! :D


Note – in a true democracy if one person posts 20,000 lengthy messages in support of a motion and two persons post 0 messages against a motion the motion is defeated 2 – 1 – the number of messages being totally irrelevant.

This is a debate not a "democracy". The issue is whether the points raised are correct not how many me-toos attaches to each of them or the comprehensiveness (or lack thereof) of each.


We must all remember that administrators are replaceable even after 30 years (ref Hosni - Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya-40 yrs) but our best chess players are not replaceable.

Your Mubarek/Gaddafi analogy is ludicrous; you may as well have thrown Hitler into the mix as well. You are insinuating that the current ACF officebearers are tantamount to Middle Eastern dictators. The facts are that neither Mubarek nor Gaddafi have faced the people in a free and fair election of any sort during their decades-long rule (Mubarek did hold one election in 2005 but it was corrupt and heavily restricted). Yet the current ACF officebearers were all re-elected unopposed in a free and fair (albeit indirect) election at the 2011 National Conference, as we also were in 2009, as many were in 2007 and earlier.

I'll believe the revolutionary hordes are at the gates of the ACF when they start actually running for officebearer elections and getting at least one vote in them.

I could be tempted to add that such analogies are grossly unworthy of an ACF life member but frankly I doubt they're worth taking that seriously.

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 05:36 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:
This is something that everyone needs to understand. You can have ppl playing with idiotic rating systems (after all these funny postes how good Glicko is...everyone gets a rating increase - tells you something about the rating system),

As I said above if we were still using ELO a larger increase would be required.


the reality is...we got only one Smerdon, one Zhao, one Wohl and one Caoili - if these ppl do not play for Australia - nobody else can.

What are you actually trying to argue here? Wohl is a strong IM but he is not #3 in the country. Caoili is the strongest female player in the country but she didn't even want to represent us in the Womens Champs; we're talking about whether or not it's an issue that the #46 rated player in the country couldn't get conditions for the Open Zonal.

And given that Michael is slagging off "stupid admin decisions" it is worth noting that Michael Baron was himself once an ACF administrator, although you could be forgiven for not noticing it. His performance was pretty much correctly reviewed by Shirty elsewhere.


Right now, Arianne and possibly Irina (even though Irina has not been playing that well lately) are the only Aus female chess playesr who are able to play at Master level. So they are kind of players who should be give all the support.

Just looking at current playing strength is an extremely shortsighted argument. If you have to pick favourites you should also look at potential future playing strength and development.


So why not use Arianne as a role model to encourage more girls to play chess.

Is there any evidence she is interested in being "used" in this fashion?

ER
22-02-2011, 07:19 PM
And given that Michael is slagging off "stupid admin decisions" it is worth noting that Michael Baron was himself once an ACF administrator, although you could be forgiven for not noticing it. His performance was pretty much correctly reviewed by Shirty elsewhere.

I thought that Michael had only got involved in Club administration - Elwood Chess Club at one stage!

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 08:00 PM
I thought that Michael had only got involved in Club administration - Elwood Chess Club at one stage!

No; he held a position called ACF Tournament Director for much of the first half of last decade, certainly between 2001-04 (I think it was abolished by 2005). Any evidence of actual activity in this role in at least his last year or two in it would be very exciting indeed and should be forwarded to this website (http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/australian_thylacine_research.html).

ER
22-02-2011, 08:05 PM
No; he held a position called ACF Tournament Director for much of the first half of last decade, certainly between 2001-04 (I think it was abolished by 2005). Any evidence of actual activity in this role in at least his last year or two in it would be very exciting indeed and should be forwarded to this website (http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/australian_thylacine_research.html).

You are horrible! :lol:
C'mon Michael I want to hear your side of the story on this!

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2011, 08:10 PM
C'mon Michael I want to hear your side of the story on this!

So do I. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet Shirty would be interested too.

MichaelBaron
23-02-2011, 12:08 AM
So do I. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet Shirty would be interested too.
I bet he would...Never again will I have anything to do with ACF....unless there is a team of people with a completely different mindset involved!
My lesson learned was: getting involved with ACF was a waste of time! As for Elwood CC..i was there just as a player and never involved in any admin.
For now, I would rather focus on chess activities. Last Tuesday I gave a free lecture at the MCC for the Novices night participants...I feel it contributed more to the chess scene than anything I ever did with ACF. At least ppl learned something about chess.

With ACF I can recall trying to implement a proper bidding process by putting together bidding check lists etc...got it done..but they were never used..cause nobody seemed to care about doing things properly. I am curious if some proper bidding procedures have been implemented since then. I can recall some of the criteria on the check lists: venue availability, budget, sponsorship, location etc.

Anyway, once I realised that my work was a waste of time cause ACF was not interested - I kissed the ACF good-bye. On a positive note, I can now understand why nothing gets done :)...

MichaelBaron
23-02-2011, 12:12 AM
No; he held a position called ACF Tournament Director for much of the first half of last decade, certainly between 2001-04 (I think it was abolished by 2005). Any evidence of actual activity in this role in at least his last year or two in it would be very exciting indeed and should be forwarded to this website (http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/australian_thylacine_research.html).


I was there for about 1 year. After this, I am not sure why they still kept my name on the list ...possibly because nobody else wanted to do the job :) :) :). I am also curious if ACF was not interested in a professional approach to running national events..why did they need this position in the first place?

Charles
23-02-2011, 01:22 PM
Hi all,

Actually if you want to talk about developing chess - when is someone going to talk about support for or assistance to Organisers?

I hear a lot about players and what they should get (money, conditions, accommodation) and as soon as a player achieves their title they expect conditions or will consider not playing - but having run a tournament as a philanthropic exercise for the last four years it is interesting how there are never any comments about support for organisers.

I have not yet had a highly ranked Australian Player or a Chess Association come to me and say - Chess is something I am passionate about what can I do to help make your tournament a success?

I have had a local businessman and two chess enterprises say they are willing to help me out but no one else - interesting!

I will be fascinated to see whether any solutions or discussion are ever run around organisation and sustainment of tournaments in the Australasian Chess scene.

There is a challenge!

(Disclaimer - This is not a whinge it is an observation on the behalf of organisers. I have consciously and happily sponsored the Doeberl through my business and my employee/families time because I believe in Chess. In the end my success comes from the bulk of players who say to me 'great tournament' and the achievement of norms for Australians on home soil)

Garvinator
23-02-2011, 05:24 PM
Actually if you want to talk about developing chess - when is someone going to talk about support for or assistance to Organisers?
I think this is one of the biggest issues in Australian chess.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2011, 09:50 PM
I bet he would...Never again will I have anything to do with ACF....unless there is a team of people with a completely different mindset involved!
My lesson learned was: getting involved with ACF was a waste of time!

Which raises the question of why there are administrators who get involved who find it is not a waste of time.


With ACF I can recall trying to implement a proper bidding process by putting together bidding check lists etc...got it done..but they were never used..cause nobody seemed to care about doing things properly. I am curious if some proper bidding procedures have been implemented since then. I can recall some of the criteria on the check lists: venue availability, budget, sponsorship, location etc.

When people want to put in a bid there is a standard form where they answer questions about many of those things and others. I don't know when the form was created or by whom. A few bids have been rejected because the answers given were grossly inadequate, and one state even lost its option to conduct an event by failing to submit any kind of details at all by the cutoff date.

Libby2
24-02-2011, 06:27 AM
I have not yet had a highly ranked Australian Player or a Chess Association come to me and say - Chess is something I am passionate about what can I do to help make your tournament a success?

I have had a local businessman and two chess enterprises say they are willing to help me out but no one else - interesting!

I will be fascinated to see whether any solutions or discussion are ever run around organisation and sustainment of tournaments in the Australasian Chess scene.

Oh come on Charles. Everyone knows there's a magic money bucket out there that all of these hopeless organisers just keep failing to ask for :owned:

Everyone knows that every other sport out there with similar numbers of participants in organised competition is wallowing in lakes of government money and support - and only chess has to work hard for it :wall:

Charles
24-02-2011, 11:03 AM
Oh come on Charles. Everyone knows there's a magic money bucket out there that all of these hopeless organisers just keep failing to ask for :owned:

Everyone knows that every other sport out there with similar numbers of participants in organised competition is wallowing in lakes of government money and support - and only chess has to work hard for it :wall:


Actually I have just had a benefactor arrive. There is apparently $24 million waiting for me because they drew my email in the Irish Lottery. How lucky am I :lol:

Garvinator
24-02-2011, 11:30 AM
Actually I have just had a benefactor arrive. There is apparently $24 million waiting for me because they drew my email in the Irish Lottery. How lucky am I :lol:I think there is massive amount of cash at the end of the rainbow, now where is that again? I can't find it in google maps :eek:

Denis_Jessop
24-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Which raises the question of why there are administrators who get involved who find it is not a waste of time.



When people want to put in a bid there is a standard form where they answer questions about many of those things and others. I don't know when the form was created or by whom. A few bids have been rejected because the answers given were grossly inadequate, and one state even lost its option to conduct an event by failing to submit any kind of details at all by the cutoff date.

The bidding form reflects the ACF by-law requirements. As I recall, it was devised by Robert Jamieson when he was ACF Deputy President and Graeme Gardiner was President (say, about 10 years ago).

DJ

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2011, 01:07 PM
I've sent a full list of proposed Records and Titled Players updates to the acting Webmaster. Whether he is in a position to update the site at present (or will be soon) I don't yet know.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 09:41 PM
List of champions has been updated, as has list of FIDE-rated players - thanks very much to Russell Murray for updating these.