PDA

View Full Version : What's missing? Meet the cast...



ChessGuru
23-03-2011, 12:09 PM
What's missing from this dynamic leadership team?

ACF Executive
President Gary Wastell (VIC)
Age: 65ish Rating: 1961

I actually have great respect for Gary, he is a tireless worker for chess. The issue is that he's in the wrong position. He is a wonderfully hard worker and very detail focused, but not a leader. He smiles at everyone and abstains from all votes, and thinks that he is being political. Really he's just getting nothing done - because people tend to naturally follow the Pres....and if he's not making any decisions then nobody is.

Deputy President Bill Gletsos (NSW)
Age: 55 Rating: 1853

A control freak and a devilishly detail oriented person. He is very hard to have a conversation with because he is loud and obnoxiously pedantic. He's repeatedly told me that the ratings on AusChess.Tornelo.com aren't the ACF ratings because Stephen Jablon's rating is wrong...he picks on the one tiny detail and ignores the 14,000 ratings that ARE correct. He'll probably rant about this post because I've said he's 55 when he's still 54 for another two weeks. I guess a good thing for a mathematician. Hard to find anyone who is less liked in the Australian chess scene.

Vice President Denis Jessop (ACT)
Age: 76 Rating: 1480

A former constitutional lawyer with a passion for bike riding. Again just loves the details in words. Very conservative, but generally a nice guy. Don't get him to write a motion for you (much less a report!) -- it will take a month and be 6 pages long, thankfully he no longer charges per word!

Vice President Kevin Bonham (TAS)
Age: 39 Rating: 1881

The baby of the group...this year was awarded the Chess Administrator of the Year, ostensibly for "being around long enough". He's now part of the club. :clap: He abstains on all matters relating to me because from time to time he does some work for me running chess comps (and does a very good job too). He's an expert (and PhD) in snails - one of the best in the country, and undoubtedly a very smart guy.

He has single-handedly kept the TCA going for the last 10 or 20 years...which comprises 2.5 chess clubs, between 30-70 "active" players (although only 3 on the last list with any games rated) and a whopping 9 with "very reliable" ratings (half the number of 2003 "very reliable" players). A total of 148 players have been added to the ACF master file for TAS since 2003 - I don't doubt that Kevin would agree that at least half of those are juniors who've come from non-ACF schools events.

Secretary Tom Accola (NSW)
Age: 74 Rating: 920

I can't say much about Tom, in my 20 years on the chess scene I've never met the guy. Judging by his rating he's probably new to chess.

Treasurer Norm Greenwood
Age: 79 Rating: 1530

I think a former accountant or equally boring financial detail person. Just a few months ago I received an invoice from him from a 2003 event (that's about Norm's usual pace). During most of the last ACF meeting I attended Norm was quietly snoring at his table (which was impressive because Bill was talking at the top of his rather loud voice!).

Basil
23-03-2011, 01:14 PM
The tenor of your post is disrespectful. I can only assume you intended this.

Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure about the need to publish people's ages and the law applying to same; but importantly I doubt neither are you, such is your proven scant regard for envelope-pushing in just about everything to which you turn your mind.

IMHO, what precedes is just another reason as to why you should never be let anywhere near the executive of the national organisation.

Desmond
23-03-2011, 02:59 PM
Hard to find anyone who is less liked in the Australian chess scene.
Oh I don't know if it would be that hard.

Denis_Jessop
23-03-2011, 03:58 PM
The short answer to ChessGuru's question is:

"An accurate description of the team members".

DJ

PS as a lawyer I tried to make this answer longer but words fail me :D

MichaelBaron
23-03-2011, 05:13 PM
For some reason Average age of the ACF executives reminds me of the Chinese Communist Party Commitee or Russian Politburo of the 1970's...but the Russian and Chinese governments have become considerably younger recently.

ChessGuru
23-03-2011, 05:56 PM
Businesses around the world spend millions of millions of dollars to try and get the perfect balance of complementary strengths on a team. I'm being serious.... what strengths do we have and what's missing?

It's interesting to start looking at THEMES of thought...

Cap'n Underwear: immediately see the negative, then jumps to look for a rule, a law somewhere that might mean that I shouldn't have written the post. Obviously interested in the details (of ages) and appalled at my disrespect for the rule of law.

Baron: different approach...straight away draws some big picture comparisons. Sees a broad theme.

Jessop: light jest with witty humor. Young at heart. :)

If this were a chess position Underwear would glance at it and say "Bb3 is a bad move, it's not in the book" while Baron would say "This reminds me of a Karpov game from 1985"...Jessop would ask what's the difference between a road-construction worker and a grandmaster.

Basil
23-03-2011, 06:07 PM
Cap'n Underwear: immediately see the negative
Wrong. Underwear immediately reads the piece as a whole, then concludes the negative, which it clearly is. And cheap. And loaded.


then jumps to look for a rule
Wrong. Underwear finds it odd that people's ages are posted - I can't recall anything like it in the 10 years I have been associated with chess administration. Then Underwear opines that the oddness is probably to do with issues relating first to privacy, and then to respect.

You are gauche. You lead with your feet. You have no class. From there it gets worse.

Denis_Jessop
23-03-2011, 08:08 PM
For some reason Average age of the ACF executives reminds me of the Chinese Communist Party Commitee or Russian Politburo of the 1970's...but the Russian and Chinese governments have become considerably younger recently.

I note your point though it's restriction to communist parties is a bit obscure. For example, Konrad Adenauer was President of the Federal Republic of Germany at the age of 90 and US Supreme Court Judges hold office for life. Numerical age is of little consequence - it's one's physical and psychological condition that counts, that being a matter of fortune among other things. David has perhaps unwittingly pointed that out in referring to my passion for cycling (among other things that he doesn't mention). How many people are fortunate enough to be able to cycle quite vigorously at the age of 75 and enjoy it? In my case, I'm also a member of the metaphorical Lance Armstrong Club.

DJ

antichrist
23-03-2011, 08:17 PM
The tenor of your post is disrespectful. I can only assume you intended this.

Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure about the need to publish people's ages and the law applying to same; but importantly I doubt neither are you, such is your proven scant regard for envelope-pushing in just about everything to which you turn your mind.

IMHO, what precedes is just another reason as to why you should never be let anywhere near the executive of the national organisation.

Chessgurus post could be read that way, but that is too narrow and simplistic assessment. There is a reason for stating ages, that is that do not expect anything new or dynamic from such aged persons. If KB has not shown such dynamism to date then dont expect it in future.

Of course they are all very respectable and hard working, lengthy period volunteers. The olders ones should have been replaced by now just to give them a break. We are lucky that they have hung around. And I hope they get free admission to any comps they enter.

But Denis' position age does not matter as he is "only" legal adviser. Not much involved and probably appreciates the occasional question thrown at him. It is good that he can offer something to society that is appreciated and the society is lucky to have a solicitor as adviser.

In a manner KB's situation, whether he deservedly or otherwise sees possible conflicts of interest and so obstains from acting, is far from ideal. I have come across a serious situation where this occurred that I cannot comment upon here unless he specificially permits me to.


But of course it is easy for outsiders to comment and criticise if we do not offer ourselves for appointment.

Chessguru, for better or worse you have people who don't appreciate you, you must criticially exam what they are on about and if justified. If they are so then you must prove otherwise for them to accept your ideas etc.

BTW other keen bike riders are G Gardner who does tours, the late Ernest Dorn a professional rider in his day, and myself who usually does a few hours a week in winter.

carry on

The Serial Pest

antichrist
23-03-2011, 08:21 PM
I note your point though it's restriction to communist parties is a bit obscure. For example, Konrad Adenauer was President of the Federal Republic of Germany at the age of 90 and US Supreme Court Judges hold office for life. Numerical age is of little consequence - it's one's physical and psychological condition that counts, that being a matter of fortune among other things. David has perhaps unwittingly pointed that out in referring to my passion for cycling (among other things that he doesn't mention). How many people are fortunate enough to be able to cycle quite vigorously at the age of 75 and enjoy it? In my case, I'm also a member of the metaphorical Lance Armstrong Club.

DJ

Denis, a few years back I had to chase up an old accountant I had done business with in about 1985. We he is about 85 years old, still practising accounting and cycles everywhere, and all the healthier for it.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 08:26 PM
Quick comment re Tas ratings: the figures above portray the Tassie rated chess scene, modest as it currently is, in a somewhat unrepresentative light because the March ratings period is generally the quietest on our calendar. Our calendar usually includes various club events on a game/week basis and about five weekenders. None of the club events finish in the March period and the only weekender normally held in it was cancelled but is likely to be held later in the year. Thus:

March 2011 ratings list: 3 players with rated games, 9 with !! ratings
Dec 2010 ratings list: 28 players with rated games, 16 with !! ratings

7 players dropped from !! to ! in the March period but at least four of these will have main-list rated games included in the June period and will presumably return to !!-hood.

As for what's missing from the cast, let me start with any critic willing to put their hand up for some actual work and be part of it. With the exception of David very nominally running for President in 2005 there's been no contested ACF Exec election in my entire time on Council (11 years now). Some people say they think the ACF needs to change but they're not willing to put themselves up and lobby the state associations to support their candidacy. I've been trying to encourage trolls from the other place to run against me for years and none of them have got the bottle to do it!

Partly the age profile of the ACF represents an issue with voluntary societies generally. People willing to put serious work into voluntary societies are often retired, unless they are independently wealthy, underemployed and happy to stay that way, etc. Some people have approached me about sometime taking on the top job and I've said it will probably have to wait a long time because there are actually some limits to how much time I can voluntarily devote to chess at my age!

As for the medal, I think if it was just a long-seatwarming thing I would have been waiting a lot longer for it. (I believe I'm the youngest to be awarded that one by some margin.) And I don't think the credit for keeping the TCA going over the last 15 years (as long as I have been involved) is anywhere near all mine. For the first half of that David Christian and I were the main "engine room" on a roughly equal basis and in the last half there have been many who have pitched in.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 08:36 PM
In a manner KB's situation, whether he deservedly or otherwise sees possible conflicts of interest and so obstains from acting, is far from ideal. I have come across a serious situation where this occurred that I cannot comment upon here unless he specificially permits me to.

I believe that AC is actually referring to my role as moderator of this site. Generally I do not moderate material by or about ChessGuru because of the employment COI mentioned. I may make exceptions in cases that are absolute no-brainers (eg provisionally deleting clearly ultra-defamatory posts for the other mods to look at them). Recently AC sent me a ridiculous 4 PMs in 44 minutes buzzing me about whether or not a post dragged from the other place to here (firstly by him with edits, then by the original author verbatim) was defamatory. I told him to buzz off and discuss it with another mod who didn't have a COI.

Contrary to AC's suggestion that this created a serious problem, it turned out that the matter was handled smoothly by Rincewind's deletion of the posts on the grounds that they were a pointless dragging of a discussion being posted elsewhere - it wasn't even necessary for the legal situation to be considered.

MichaelBaron
23-03-2011, 08:37 PM
I note your point though it's restriction to communist parties is a bit obscure. For example, Konrad Adenauer was President of the Federal Republic of Germany at the age of 90 and US Supreme Court Judges hold office for life. Numerical age is of little consequence - it's one's physical and psychological condition that counts, that being a matter of fortune among other things. David has perhaps unwittingly pointed that out in referring to my passion for cycling (among other things that he doesn't mention). How many people are fortunate enough to be able to cycle quite vigorously at the age of 75 and enjoy it? In my case, I'm also a member of the metaphorical Lance Armstrong Club.

DJ

Denis, with your examples - you have outstanding individulas performing outstanding jobs. In Cases of China and Russia - the entire management teams were in their 70's/80's. Where I agree with David is that all age groups should be represented. Having someone in the 70s as part of a management team is a great asset. But having 4 out of the 7 people listed in the 70's may not be best. It is not just about being strong enough to do the work, it is also about getting people from other generations to contribute their ideas and therefore, deliver greater diversity! This is the only reason ACF reminds me of the Chinese/Russian leaders :) :) :).

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 08:41 PM
It is not just about being strong enough to do the work, it is also about getting people from other generations to contribute their ideas and therefore, deliver greater diversity!

If it was just getting people to contribute ideas it would be so much easier! It's also about getting people to contribute time and work. Most of the ACF's most vehement critics (CG excepted of course) are among the laziest people on earth. The exceptions that prove the rule would rather be doing the same thing for pay.

antichrist
23-03-2011, 08:44 PM
I believe that AC is actually referring to my role as moderator of this site. Recently AC sent me a ridiculous 4 PMs in 44 minutes buzzing me about whether or not a post dragged from the other place to here (firstly by him with edits, then by the original author verbatim) was defamatory. I told him to buzz off and discuss it with another mod who didn't have a COI.

Contrary to AC's suggestion that this created a serious problem, it turned out that the matter was handled smoothly by Rincewind's deletion of the posts on the grounds that they were a pointless dragging of a discussion being posted elsewhere - it wasn't even necessary for the legal situation to be considered.

Considering the deletion by RW was about 8 hours later, sufficient time for possible defamation to be much more serious (consult Denis on this), it was about chess issues in Australia and therefore should be concerned with on this board, regardless if aired on another quite minority board. As I had deleted out the libellous parts my original post it could have stood for the benefit of the board and chess in Australia. If not then we are forced to go occasionally to minority board to discuss real issues of chess in Australia. An unnecessarily situation and the dumbing down of this site.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 08:47 PM
Hmmmm. AC, I'll concede you have five percent of a point if David sues the other place (not just threatens to sue, but actually sues Tooslie directly) over the presence of Ninja's post there.

Rincewind
23-03-2011, 09:01 PM
Hmmmm. AC, I'll concede you have five percent of a point if David sues the other place (not just threatens to sue, but actually sues Tooslie directly) over the presence of Ninja's post there.

I can't see David has much of a case here though. At the time he was participating in the discussion with Ninja both in the Toolbox and copying it here.

The posts were removed from here, not due to a complaint from David, rather to terminate the silly situation of people (Chessguru and Ninja mainly but potentially others) having to replicate their posts on two different boards. That farcical state of affairs was brought about by a particularly attention dependent serial pest who is reminded to desist from doing so again.

Grant Szuveges
23-03-2011, 10:39 PM
What's missing from this dynamic leadership team?

ACF Executive
President Gary Wastell (VIC)
Age: 65ish Rating: 1961

I actually have great respect for Gary, he is a tireless worker for chess. The issue is that he's in the wrong position. He is a wonderfully hard worker and very detail focused, but not a leader. He smiles at everyone and abstains from all votes, and thinks that he is being political. Really he's just getting nothing done - because people tend to naturally follow the Pres....and if he's not making any decisions then nobody is.

Deputy President Bill Gletsos (NSW)
Age: 55 Rating: 1853

A control freak and a devilishly detail oriented person. He is very hard to have a conversation with because he is loud and obnoxiously pedantic. He's repeatedly told me that the ratings on AusChess.Tornelo.com aren't the ACF ratings because Stephen Jablon's rating is wrong...he picks on the one tiny detail and ignores the 14,000 ratings that ARE correct. He'll probably rant about this post because I've said he's 55 when he's still 54 for another two weeks. I guess a good thing for a mathematician. Hard to find anyone who is less liked in the Australian chess scene.

Vice President Denis Jessop (ACT)
Age: 76 Rating: 1480

A former constitutional lawyer with a passion for bike riding. Again just loves the details in words. Very conservative, but generally a nice guy. Don't get him to write a motion for you (much less a report!) -- it will take a month and be 6 pages long, thankfully he no longer charges per word!

Vice President Kevin Bonham (TAS)
Age: 39 Rating: 1881

The baby of the group...this year was awarded the Chess Administrator of the Year, ostensibly for "being around long enough". He's now part of the club. :clap: He abstains on all matters relating to me because from time to time he does some work for me running chess comps (and does a very good job too). He's an expert (and PhD) in snails - one of the best in the country, and undoubtedly a very smart guy.

He has single-handedly kept the TCA going for the last 10 or 20 years...which comprises 2.5 chess clubs, between 30-70 "active" players (although only 3 on the last list with any games rated) and a whopping 9 with "very reliable" ratings (half the number of 2003 "very reliable" players). A total of 148 players have been added to the ACF master file for TAS since 2003 - I don't doubt that Kevin would agree that at least half of those are juniors who've come from non-ACF schools events.

Secretary Tom Accola (NSW)
Age: 74 Rating: 920

I can't say much about Tom, in my 20 years on the chess scene I've never met the guy. Judging by his rating he's probably new to chess.

Treasurer Norm Greenwood
Age: 79 Rating: 1530

I think a former accountant or equally boring financial detail person. Just a few months ago I received an invoice from him from a 2003 event (that's about Norm's usual pace). During most of the last ACF meeting I attended Norm was quietly snoring at his table (which was impressive because Bill was talking at the top of his rather loud voice!).

This is actually a very interesting post and there is a bit which can be taken from it. First of all though, I want to make it known that with the exception of Gary Wastell, Ive never actually met any of the people on this executive (although I have of course had email correspondence with Kevin and Bill) and thus I dont know much about any of them. The main thing that I notice is the age group of the vast majority of these people - there doesnt seem to be any younger people - which may or may not be a bit of a worry... but Im in no position to judge.

What I can do though is analyse the Melbourne Chess Club committee, but more importantly WHY it is a committee which works so well and which will be able to change in a positive way over time.

GRANT SZUVEGES: President 2009, 2010, 2011
Age: 34, Chess: over 2000
It isnt easy to talk about oneself in the third person, but its probably fair to say that I am extroverted, creative and a good leader. Im happy to play the role of "the face of the club" and to discuss the club and its affairs (and talk it up at every opportunity available). I have leadership experience and use my people skills to discuss with people what they want from the club and the chess scene. Im also of the belief that innovation is important. Thats why I thought up the Blitz Marathons, the coaching raffle and the Novice Night concept. My FM title also probably looks good for someone in the leadership role. One of the bigger things that Ive brought to the club are ideas that Ive taken from other sports, other clubs and other businesses and applied them to the MCC. My long history at MCC also means that I understand the place and its culture very well and am considered by the members to be someone who represents and looks after the interests of the MCC first and foremost.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Vice President 2010, 2011
Age: over 50, Chess: under 1500
Elizabeth is a psychologist by trade and thus has excellent people skills. She is friendly and relates to people well. She is the perfect "face of novice night" and has to ability to speak to potential sponsors and the like. She also has the skills to play the role of president when I am unavailable as well as the practical skills to organise day to day things at the club.

ANDREW SAINT: Treasurer 2011
Age: 30ish, Chess: approx 1850
Andrew is our treasurer and has great experience in the treasures role in South Australia. He also has experience in other roles there too. As well as undrstanding treasury issues, Andrew also has the experience to play other roles.

JOHN BECKMAN: Secretary 2011
Age: over 50, Chess: approx 1500
John is someone who has been an MCC member for years but is new to the committee. He ran a very successful business for years and is very efficient. As well as being the perfect person for the role of secretary, he also has a strong practical steak - evident in the fact that he was recently able to fix a heap of digital chess clocks which saved us a fortune.

SIMON DALE: Registrar 2010, 2011
Age: 40ish, Chess: non player
Simon is the father of Ari and Finley Dale and thus has an interest in the success of the club. He has brought his considerable computer skills with him which have enormously helped the MCC to not only join the 21st century, but also to start setting up proper systems which makes the whole running of the club easier. He also has experience with committees/parents groups at his sons school.

JESSE JAGER: committee member 2010, 2011
Age: 25ish, Chess: over 2000
Jesse is studying law and is a very smart cookie. He is professional and intelligent and can make good decisions quickly as well as getting things done in a practical manner. He also has the skills to fill in with treasury and secretarial work when needed.

ALEX KAPLAN: committee member 2009, 2010, 2011
Age: 50ish, Chess: approx 1500
Alex's technical role is probably "director of communications". Alex has a very specific role of communicating with potential sponsors, writing and draughting official letters and fixing the official publications which the rest of us are not able to write as well as he can. It is a small and very specific role, but also a very very important one. Whenever Alex is given a job to do, he does it really really well. The quality of his skills is invaluable.

PAUL CAVEZZA: committee member 2011
Age: 30ish, Chess: approx 1500-1600
Paul is someone who the committee has wanted for a while but overseas travel prevented him from joining earlier. He is practical and plays a perfect role of a "Mr fix-it" type character who can do secretarial work, publicity, running tournaments and all sorts of other things around the club. He drives a van which is a very useful things for a club the size of the MCC to have access to and has a very progressive outlook on life. He goes by the name "Pablito" on the chess forums, where he does a great job representing the club online.

CARL GORKA: Vice President 2009, Secretary 2010
Age: 45ish, Chess: over 2000
Carl is no longer on the committee but was instrumental in setting things up with me in 2009! I see Carl as the ultimate "Mr Chess" type of person. He helped set up Noble Park Chess Club, played at Hobsons Bay Chess Club and Box Hill Chess Club, nowadays works a bit with Chess Victoria and even works in chess as a coach for Chess Kids. As well as all this, he has also been involved in chess overseas. Even though he isnt officially on the committee this year, he still plays a leadership role around the club (as an arbiter and a duty officer as well as running the study groups) and keeps an MCC presence on the chess forums.

PANO SKIOTIS: Treasurer 2009, 2010
Age: 50ish, Chess: over 2000
Pano is a book keeper by trade and was the perfect person to be the treasurer in the few years where we needed someone to get this job absolutely spot on! He also has experience on committees in other fields of endeavour. He is travelling overseas this year and thus did not stand for a position in 2011.

BOB KRSTIC: committee member 2009, 2010
Age: over 70 (I think!), Chess: 1800ish?
Bob has considerable experience on committees including previous MCC committees in earlier eras. He worked for ANSETT and has great experience in communicating with people in suits in the professional world - something that not everyone has the ability to do.

MALCOLM PYKE: Secretary 2009
Age: 35, Chess: over 2000
While everyone else on this committee was new to the role at the beginning of 2009, Malcolm had been there before and this was absolutely valuable in that some continuity was needed. Without this continuity, the job would have been much harder for everyone else. Never underestimate how much someone who has some experience with something can show new people the ropes. Malcolm being able to explain to the rest of us why things were as they were meant that we had a much easier time fixing things which needed to be fixed. After 2009 (and approx 10 years of committee service) Malcolm decided to hang up the boots - but like Carl, he still plays a leadership role at the club helping with tournaments and other things around the club.

What I want to demonstrate here is how a successful committee runs and how it transitions from year to year. Notice that all age groups are represented on this committee, as well as all age groups. Women are represented as are parents of children who play at the club - something that is vital when a club wants to be known as family friendly. Virtually everyone on this committee has spent lengthy time overseas and has seen how things are done in other places. They all do different jobs out in the real world and have different skills which they bring to the MCC.

Now, lets see how they work together as a committee! Notice that many of these people could arguably play numerous roles. If someone is sick, or overseas or too busy for a period of time, there is always someone to step into the void. We are even in the enviable position of having 2 people (or 3 if we include Jesse) who can fill the role of a good treasurer, as well as numerous people who could arguably be the secretary (for example, Ive often filled in doing the minutes when secretarys have been unavailable). While other chess organisations have trouble filling positions (Chess Victoria over the last few years for example), our club ensures that we always have people to cover all of the roles well.

Is any of this an accident? No! We have specifically gone out and got the right people for the right jobs to ensure that our club is looked after going into the future. For example, when Andrew Saint moved to Victoria, we specifically sort his services to make sure that our club would be enhanced. We did our homework and found out that he did a great job with South Australian chess and made it a priority to get him on board!

THE FUTURE
It is important to remember that this committee wont always be the same as it is now. I wont be here forever and nor will the others on the committee, so we are always looking for people who will add something of quality to the group. We also try to make sure that we put the right people into the right positions. For example, John would be ok as a treasurer and Andrew as a secretary, however Andrew as treasurer and John as secretary works even better than this. When we sort out Elizabeth for the start of 2010 (we had identified her as a person with quality skills in 2009), Carl specifically moved to the role of secretary to free up the Vice President role which we thought would suit her more. It also gave Carl experience in 2 different roles - and thus he could cover more than one position in future.

So, who are we after now? Here are a few people who we would love to get onto the MCC committee. Ive only listed 3 here, but there are plenty more who I will be out hunting!

FRANK LEKKAS
Age: 18 or 19, Chess: 1800-2000
I can visualise Frank as an MCC president one day actually. Frank is very skilled with anything involving computers and also displays vital leadership skills. He is extroverted and charismatic and is able to represent the club well, as he does on the chess forums (as Heartbreak Kid) and at the club (when running the dgt board, the allegros and swissperfect). He is only just out of highschool and will only get even better from here.

PAUL KOVACEVIC
Age: 50ish I think, Chess: 1700ish
Paul has worked in a professional field for years. He is well presented and easy to speak to. He is well organised and I could picture him in any number of positions on an MCC committee. He has also been an MCC member for years, and has stuck by the club through the difficult times.

JAMES MACAULAY
Age: 20ish, Chess: 1300ish
James is young and very likeable. He is someone who knows a lot of people and has the ability to bring chess to non-chess players. He is good with kids and simply enjoys chess - you can often see him playing chess in cafes with the general public. He is the perfect person to introduce novices to the club and then go and have a beer with them afterwards.

This is the way to run a successful committee in the present and into the future.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2011, 10:52 PM
TCA exec at present has a median age about 45; in recent times we've had officebearers as young as 17 and as old as 89. I do find that state and national meetings are very different beasts though.

Basil
24-03-2011, 08:23 AM
This is actually a very interesting post ...
No, David Cordover's post not an interesting post at all. It's simply a crass post. By contrast, yours was a positive and fair analysis of the MCC committee and should he ever want to take instruction, he could follow your lead.

If David Cordover genuinely wanted to examine the age profile of the ACF, he could have alluded to the fact far more obliquely and without the personal attacks. More to the point, he could hone in on the salient issue which would be to ask why younger people aren't offering their services on the ACF as opposed to attacking the incumbents.

However, as David Cordover is a serial boofhead, that was always unlikely.

MichaelBaron
24-03-2011, 10:18 AM
May be David did not raise the issue in the most delicate way...but the issue is still an issue :). Furthermore, I've seen several responses along the lines of 1) kicking David for asking the question or 2) providing evidence that ACF executive team is training to enter Tour De France but to me, it would be more important to get a response to the main question that I believe he is asking indirectly (as evident from his description of Wastell). What is it that ACF has been up to and what is it going to be up to in the near future? What is being done?

Also, I really liked Grant's comparison (also an indirect one as he was simply talking about MCC ;)) between the MCC and the ACF... I do not always agree with what MCC management is doing and neither do others but I've not heard a single accusation/complaint so far that MCC was doing NOTHING! Capablanca said once that having a bad plan is better than having no plan. Overall, the MCC plan looks pretty good to me. CV now (finally!) also appears to be having a plan. but what is the ACF development plan? What are the things that have been done..say in the last 5 years? If you ask me what MCC has done in the last 2 years...I can put together a long list. With the ACF..there may be something great or not so great things going on..but I am not aware :).

antichrist
24-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Years ago I was considering whether to nominate for a position of the NSWCA, but I was warned by a previous officeholder that it is very difficult to get anything done, they are all set in their way etc.

Well considering that a significant contigent of the NSWCA officeholders are also ACF officeholders it is not tempting if new blood wanted to impliment change. Of course proposed change must have greater merit than what they are replacing.

But if the current officeholders are doing a decent job what is the problem. with the "new" blood of Brian Jones/successors doing the SIO, and Amir at Gold Coast pulling off winners, and now new Easter FIDE-rated comps at Qld and Melbourne, there are ample opportunities for youngsters to earn norms. etc. Sponsorship seems to be the biggest problem. If there any wizards out there jump out of your hat and present yourself.

The Serial Pest

Denis_Jessop
24-03-2011, 11:31 AM
May be David did not raise the issue in the most delicate way...but the issue is still an issue :). Furthermore, I've seen several responses along the lines of 1) kicking David for asking the question or 2) providing evidence that ACF executive team is training to enter Tour De France but to me, it would be more important to get a response to the main question that I believe he is asking indirectly (as evident from his description of Wastell). What is it that ACF has been up to and what is it going to be up to in the near future? What is being done?

Also, I really liked Grant's comparison (also an indirect one as he was simply talking about MCC ;)) between the MCC and the ACF... I do not always agree with what MCC management is doing and neither do others but I've not heard a single accusation/complaint so far that MCC was doing NOTHING! Capablanca said once that having a bad plan is better than having no plan. Overall, the MCC plan looks pretty good to me. CV now (finally!) also appears to be having a plan. but what is the ACF development plan? What are the things that have been done..say in the last 5 years? If you ask me what MCC has done in the last 2 years...I can put together a long list. With the ACF..there may be something great or not so great things going on..but I am not aware :).

The MCC is a club; the ACF is a national federation. The two bodies are quite different both in their constitution and in the issues they face. The ACF Executive is not the ACF but its elected executive. At the elections in January their were no nominations other than from those elected. There also exist the ACF Council and the National Conference both of which take precedence over the Executive and are differently constituted (the Executive doesn't even have voting rights at a Conference). Criticism of the Executive as the ACF is simply misplaced.

DJ

PS I deliberately did not get into discussion of planning as that is really another issue for discussion, perhaps, elsewhere.

Rincewind
24-03-2011, 12:23 PM
The Serial Pest

You seem to have taken a shine to that nickname. Perhaps it is time to change handles. I am thinking along the lines of Weevil - the cereal pest.

ChessGuru
24-03-2011, 03:15 PM
Getting people to contribute time and effort is more about organisational culture. With such a proud tradition of "doing nothing" it is no wonder that the ACF struggles to find people to actually do anything. When someone new joins the team the expectations placed on them are so low that even the most dynamic of people will droop quickly, become frustrated by the stagnation and move on (see the list of past Presidents with potential who were unable to change the culture and left to pursue other activities; West, Gardiner, Jamieson, Stirling).

Read what you want into my original post -- I'm not trying to be critical of any one of the members of the ACF exec (well, OK, maybe Bill :)). Any one (or even 2) would be an asset on a national leadership team. But not all of them. I am critical of the MIX of thinking styles and skills (age is irrelevant). Every member is detail focused, controlling, blaming and rules oriented....there are no dynamic, big picture, plan creating, inspirational people. This creates a culture of petty sniping (where Bill thrives) and long, unproductive meetings.


Criticism of the Executive as the ACF is simply misplaced.

I'm sorry you feel this way...to my mind the Executive is the head of the organisation and must lead. Leading means taking responsibility. Where else does the "buck" stop? With great power comes great responsibility.

My belief is that the ACF Exec believes and acts as if that they are administrative custodians (hence no responsibility for results and feel that criticism is misplaced)... elected to keep the wheels turning the same way they always have. That's why the ACF feels the need to CONTROL every aspect of chess in this country but leave the doing, the thinking and the planning to others.

As the head of the ACF you are an example and role-model for every state, club and player. The executive sets the tone for the entire country.

bergil
24-03-2011, 03:27 PM
Years ago I was considering whether to nominate for a position of the NSWCA, but I was warned by a previous officeholder that it is very difficult to get anything done, they are all set in their way etc.

The Serial PestThe previous officeholder gave you bad advice, that has not been my experience on the NSWCA Council.

Basil
24-03-2011, 04:17 PM
... see the list of past Presidents with potential who were unable to change the culture and left to pursue other activities; West, Gardiner, Jamieson, Stirling.
What 'culture' did these presidents try and change, subsequently fail and subsequently leave because of that failure? And who do you blame for that failure? No good fannying around with unsubstantiated crap. Let's have it then.


I am critical of the MIX of thinking styles and skills (age is irrelevant).
So you originally you listed ages because ... ?


Every member is detail focused, controlling, blaming and rules oriented
Substantiation? The facts don't support your allegation, but just for laughs, let's have say ... an example where Denis is controlling.


...there are no dynamic, big picture, plan creating, inspirational people.
I'd consider myself one of those people (not nec. a good one); I don't have time to contribute at present. Can you find a person who fits that category, and who does have time, but doesn't stand because of the incumbents? Then we can consider that person's claim on its merits. I'm unaware of any talent that refuses to serve/ stand because of the incumbents.

Stop waving your tockley around and say something you can support.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2011, 07:49 PM
Every member is detail focused, controlling, blaming and rules oriented....

David, let me make it clear that by making that comment about "every member" and referring to the Executive you are making an implied personal attack on me. Though most of those expressions could be taken as compliments, the tone of your use of "blaming" is clearly negative, as if certain patronising and belittling overtones of your otherwise positive introductory comments about me weren't bad enough.

I have generally restrained myself from making personal criticisms of you on this board over the past few years in view of our business relationship.

Since you seem willing to extend your attacks on the ACF to comments that reflect negatively and personally on me (and that you don't seem to feel encumbered by any need to substantiate with evidence) you may rest assured that that restraint is now at an end. I hope that won't affect our business relationship but I won't be mincing my words.

Garvinator
24-03-2011, 08:49 PM
David,

I find your conduct in this matter appalling to say the least. At least two of the people you have attacked in your first post are people who either have a business relationship with, or could be generally be regarded as being sympathetic to you and your endeavours.

But as soon as you receive a decision from the ACF council you do not like and your discussions with the ACF council have not been greeted warmly, your choice is then to try and attack those same ACF executive members on an open bulletin board.

The only motive I can ascribe to this choice of action is to attempt to garner some kind of bulletin board support for your actions. The only issue with this is that you always talk in generalities and when you are questioned, you evade the direct question, or lecture others on what they are doing wrong.

I think that your first post has not in any way helped your caused, but rather all it has done is shown once again how vindictive you can potentially be when you do not get your own way. Instead of continuing to discuss an issue in a mature manner, you instead choose to attack a persons character.

It is no wonder that as time goes on that your motives are regarded with suspicion as a first line of response, when you act as you have done here.

All I felt in your first post was sorrow for Gary Wastell and Kevin Bonham, who you had no hesitation in throwing them under the bus when you could not get your own way.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2011, 08:54 PM
He's repeatedly told me that the ratings on AusChess.Tornelo.com aren't the ACF ratings because Stephen Jablon's rating is wrong...he picks on the one tiny detail and ignores the 14,000 ratings that ARE correct.It is not the only rating that is wrong just the most visible one that is wrong.

Hard to find anyone who is less liked in the Australian chess scene.No need to be so modest.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2011, 11:04 PM
In a recent email to the ACF, David asked them to look at the bigger picture.

Let us indeed look at the bigger picture, though one he would obviously like everyone to conveniently ignore.

Let us look at some of his previous actions.

1) Previously claiming on his website that he was an International Arbiter even though he was not.
2) Setting up a schools competition and running it in opposition to the ACF's own Australian Schools Teams Championship. His reference to his interschool events as the National Interschool championship could easily to the uninitiated lead them into believing it was the official national school teams championship.
3) Setting up a website www.chess.asn.au entitled "Chess Association of Australia Inc" and was advertising on that website Accredited Professional Chess Coaching courses. Again the uninitiated could be mistaken into believing it was the official website for the national chess body in Australia. In fact here on Chesschat whilst running for CV President in 2009 he said "Actually, that Association was created some years ago with the intention of competing with and eventually replacing the ACF."
4) The last time he was on the ACF was during 2004 as the CV Delegate. At the ACF meeting in April he tried to change a number of the conditions for the upcoming Australian Junior and ASTC events. When asked if the state junior leagues (ACTJCL, NSWJCL, SAJCL) were aware of this he responded in the affirmative and a number of motions were passed that supported his changes.
It was discovered in the following 24 hours that the state junior leagues were in fact unaware of his proposed changes and all the motions were then recisinded.

It is little wonder he lost the vote for ACF President back in 2005 22-0.

And David continues to wonder why people do not trust him.

MichaelBaron
24-03-2011, 11:59 PM
I have generally restrained myself from making personal criticisms of you on this board over the past few years in view of our business relationship.

.

This sentense alone explains alot :) :) :)

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 12:39 AM
This sentense alone explains alot :) :) :)

I think you're reading into it something that's not actually there, but I can't tell which of the many plausible and equally silly insinuations you might be aiming for.

If you think I'm saying David's a hopelessly toxic twit and I only work for him because I need the money and don't think he's doing anything right then you're not even on the right planet.

If you think I'm saying that I keep my mouth shut to avoid biting the hand that feeds me you're wrong about that too. I bite far bigger potential hands in public on a routine basis.

If you think that David pays me to run tournaments so I won't diss him that's also wrong; indeed there have been so many tournaments here where I was the only available practical option, even though I do not drive and he had to pay half the GNP of Togo to get me from A to B minor in a taxi. (Which, by the way, shows his commitment to building chess, even in out of the way places, even if he makes a loss - a commitment that is thoroughly sincere and that has reaped great rewards for Tasmanian junior chess.)

Probably all these guesses are wrong and what you're getting at is something even sillier.

It just happens that I have some understanding of basic COI and of the way that when you're commenting on something you're conflicted about, it's easy to allow that conflict to steer you in the wrong direction. Even when you're aware of that and looking out for it, you can still overadjust. Usually more prudent to just stay out of it or restrict comments to uncontentious factual details.

Except that if David doesn't think that his COI re me encumbers him from including derogatory faint-praise silliness in his attack on the ACF (an attack clearly motivated by him getting the raspberry from the ACF on an issue I abstained on and he would have known I would abstain on) then all the reasons for caution except for self-interest have just flown out the window. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 12:58 AM
Oh, and this is a non sequitur.


....there are no dynamic, big picture, plan creating, inspirational people. This creates a culture of petty sniping [petty snipe removed -KB] and long, unproductive meetings.

What creates long unproductive meetings has nothing to do with whether members are big-picture oriented or detail focussed. Quarterly phone hookups have been of around the same length more or less throughout my 11 years on Council whether the President was a big-picture type or not.

The main cause of overlong meetings in voluntary societies in general is waffle. Unlike written waffle (which nobody is forced to read) verbal waffle extends the meeting for everyone. Verbal wafflers come in all shapes, sizes and ages and have every possible view imaginable about the size of the picture.

The desire/ability of the chairman to control the length of the meeting is also an important factor.

antichrist
25-03-2011, 01:03 AM
Oh, and this is a non sequitur.



What creates long unproductive meetings has nothing to do with whether members are big-picture oriented or detail focussed. Quarterly phone hookups have been of around the same length more or less throughout my 11 years on Council whether the President was a big-picture type or not.

The main cause of overlong meetings in voluntary societies in general is waffle. Verbal wafflers come in all shapes, sizes and ages and have every possible view imaginable about the size of the picture.

Some organisations have time limits on how long a person can hold the floor and a limit of how many people can speak on an issue. As long as allocating an overall total time that an issue may take. Gullotine finish I suppose it could be called.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 01:06 AM
Some organisations have time limits on how long a person can hold the floor and a limit of how many people can speak on an issue. As long as allocating an overall total time that an issue may take. Gullotine finish I suppose it could be called.

Yes. In my experience this doesn't always work too well - usually ends up with a motion being moved to extend the limits. Good for progress-association type situations where you don't want some random windbag blabbing on all night.

antichrist
25-03-2011, 01:32 AM
We have other chess entrepreneurs but I can't remember any bad vibes about them (Parr, Jones, Gardiner)

antichrist
25-03-2011, 02:05 AM
Vice President Kevin Bonham (TAS)
Age: 39 Rating: 1881

At least you got it in print whilst it still looks good - the rating I mean

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 09:09 AM
Only good in the sense of being palindromic AC. Now cease making inane off-topic comments on this thread or you'll be missing from its cast. :lol:

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 10:43 AM
Lets make things concrete (since we got almost all of the ACF board memebers viewing/contributing to this thread). What are the 3 main achievements that ACF would like to credit itself with..say for the period of 3 years :hmm: And what are the 3 tasks they are striving to achieve over the next 3 years.

Expected Responses: 1) We are writing constitution 2) We are writing something about something 3) We now update website once every 3 years as opposed once every 25 years as previously 4) we have meetings where we talk about chess in Australia 5) When you were ACF tournament organiser why didn't you do more 6) Why do not you (and others) join the ACF and do it 7) We are cool people who ride bikes, collect spiders etc. and you are stupid 8) you are stipid and Cordover is stupid and everyone else is stupid....so why should we bother to explain what we are doing 9) we decide who runs national championships, do ratings and other bookkeeping tasks and mostimportantly collect the money

OK all this was heard before! But can anyone list:

3 TASKS COMPLETED OVER 3 YEARS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGINIFICANT VISIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AUSTRALIAN CHESS SCENE?
Am i asking for too much (3 taks over 3 years)? - fine, lets make the question easy.
HOW ABOUT 2 TASKS COMPLETED OVER 5 YEARS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT VISIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AUSTRALIAN CHESS SCENE?

HOW ABOUT 1 TASK COMPLETED OVER 7 YEARS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT VISIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE AUSTRALIAN CHESS SCENE?

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 11:04 AM
Michael, I'm not really that interested in engaging with posts that employ RANTING CAPITALS. I'd like to start with a question to you:

Do you subscribe to and read the ACF email newsletter?

Brian_Jones
25-03-2011, 11:17 AM
I'd like to start with a question to you:

Do you subscribe to and read the ACF email newsletter?

Dear Michael and Kevin.

Do you subscribe to and read the Australasian Chess magazine?

If not you are both missing some things! ;)

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 11:29 AM
Dear Michael and Kevin.

Do you subscribe to and read the Australasian Chess magazine?

If not you are both missing some things!

Ah yes, like paid ads for the Toolbox in which every claim made is misleading if not outright false.

The question pertinent to this thread is whether by no longer subscribing to your magazine I am missing any relevant news about the ACF that I would not otherwise see. I greatly doubt this is the case.

After many years of subscription I stopped subscribing at the start of last year. This was something I was rather sad about doing since I do believe that print magazines are still important and I have tried to keep faith with whatever print magazine was available for the Aus Chess scene over a long period.

However my decision (or lack of a decision to resubscribe) was prompted by a number of things:

1. The fact that the magazine more or less always contained a large proportion of content that I had already read online.

2. The cost. I find it somewhat on the high side, and always have.

3. I was willing to ignore my concerns about 1 and 2 in the interests of keeping the faith with the idea of a national print magazine but some of Brian's sillier comments on here made me disinclined as a consumer to line his pockets unless I was completely convinced of the value of what I was buying.

Please note I am not encouraging anyone else to boycott it, just explaining why I no longer subscribe.

Basil
25-03-2011, 11:29 AM
Lets make things concrete ...
Dear Michael
Can we start with your ability to follow the birdy? It's very simple:

• This thread was set up to ask who was missing
• After posing the initial question of missing, it set about attacking who was present
• The thread bungler who refused to answer his own question :rolleyes: :lol: has since shifted goal posts by claiming age isn't relevant after going to great lengths to (unusually) include them, plus a bucketload of unsubstantiated and erroneous dribble.
• You have since jumped in on the back end for some cheap slops rehashing yet another attack-the-ACF agenda.

You're more than entitled to do this any time, but please don't pass yourself off as someone following the birdy - coz you clerarly ain't.

I'd suggest the only thing likely to be 'concrete' out of this thread is the combination of David Cordover's dribble and your slops.

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 12:03 PM
Michael, I'm not really that interested in engaging with posts that employ RANTING CAPITALS. I'd like to start with a question to you:

Do you subscribe to and read the ACF email newsletter?
Yes I do. But from reading the newsletter - I did not notice anything happening. So may be you could just list some of the big developments ( the biggest ones)

antichrist
25-03-2011, 12:37 PM
Dear Michael
Can we start with your ability to follow the birdy? It's very simple:

• This thread was set up to ask who was missing
• After posing the initial question of missing, it set about attacking who was present
• The thread bungler who refused to answer his own question :rolleyes: :lol: has since shifted goal posts by claiming age isn't relevant after going to great lengths to (unusually) include them, plus a bucketload of unsubstantiated and erroneous dribble.
• You have since jumped in on the back end for some cheap slops rehashing yet another attack-the-ACF agenda.

You're more than entitled to do this any time, but please don't pass yourself off as someone following the birdy - coz you clerarly ain't.

I'd suggest the only thing likely to be 'concrete' out of this thread is the combination of David Cordover's dribble and your slops.

Gunnar, the question where was the dynamism, that is what was missing. And accordingly he must argue it is missiing from those present, so must at least look at present officebearers sideways. Not everyone is like Rupert Murdoch who still is CEO at about 80 years old - 99% would be lacking dynamism by about 55 I reakon. So age is relevant.

Some of M. Baron's shots are cheap, in the sense that they are putting down some hard workers and trivallising their cute ways, but KB should be in a posi to laud some big inititives and successes of ACF - RANTING CAPITALS not withstanding.

Brian_Jones
25-03-2011, 01:41 PM
So may be you could just list some of the big developments ( the biggest ones)


Most of the following have been undertaken (and approved) by officers and/or clubs under the auspices of the Australian Chess Federation (ACF):

Australian Championships (various)
Australian Open Championships (various)
Richard Pratt sponsorship of chess
Myer-Tan Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
ERGAS Junior Training Squads
Yulgilbar-Think Big Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
Sydney International Open (inc Parramatta Chess Festival)
Oceania Zonal Championships (various)
Oceania Seniors Championship
FIDE Arbiters Seminar

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 01:48 PM
Most of the following have been undertaken (and approved) by officers and/or clubs under the auspices of the Australian Chess Federation (ACF):

Australian Championships (various)
Australian Open Championships (various)
Richard Pratt sponsorship of chess
Myer-Tan Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
ERGAS Junior Training Squads
Yulgilbar-Think Big Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
Sydney International Open (inc Parramatta Chess Festival)
Oceania Zonal Championships (various)
Oceania Seniors Championship
FIDE Arbiters Seminar
Thank you, Brian.
So from the above I am assuming that ACF sees its main role in approving national events. Also, some of them ACF also helped to organise.

ER
25-03-2011, 01:52 PM
... In Cases of China and Russia - the entire management teams were in their 70's/80's... This is the only reason ACF reminds me of the Chinese/Russian leaders :) :) :).

GM Victor Korchnoi Age 80 Rating 2557 :P :owned: and mind you all of the above had a good life, he didn't! :)

BTW I don't think all of them were that old, Leonid Brezhnev at 44 was the youngest ever general secretary of the CP of USSR and Gorbachev wasn't that old either when he was a member and later leader of the country!

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 01:55 PM
So as far as I understand, strategy-wise - ACF is being Reactive rather than Proactive. It tries to sustain the existing infrastructure rather to develop a new one.

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 02:01 PM
GM Victor Korchnoi Age 80 Rating 2557 :P :owned: and mind you all of the above had a good life, he didn't! :)

BTW I don't think all of them were that old, Leonid Brezhnev at 44 was the youngest ever general secretary of the CP of USSR and Gorbachev wasn't that old either when he was a member and later leader of the country!

JAK, Gorbachev was relatively young when he took rains..but I was referring to the previous generation of the Soviet leaders: Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko as well as their ''seconds'' Suslov, Gromyko, Ustinov.

Also Brezhnev was in his 50's not 44 when assuming the leadership role. By the late 1970's majority of the Soviet Politburo (aka National Council) members in the USSR were in their 70's. Given the changes to the life expectancy and improving standards of living worldwide. Being in the 70's at the time could be complared to being in the 80's now. Furthermore, the Age itself is just a number. The reason I took a note of David's post is the fact that older managers tend to be more reactive rather than proactive and arguably less dynamic and more dogmatic. Of course, you can always find ''special cases'' Such as Deng and his team of reformers who undertook the task of reforming the Chinese economy in the late 1970's.

ER
25-03-2011, 02:19 PM
JAK, Gorbachev was relatively young when he took rains..but I was referring to the previous generation of the Soviet leaders: Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko as well as their ''seconds'' Suslov, Gromyko, Ustinov.

Also Brezhnev was in his 50's not 44 when assuming the leadership role. By the late 1970's majority of the Soviet Politburo (aka National Council) members in the USSR were in their 70's. Given the changes to the life expectancy and improving standards of living worldwide. Being in the 70's at the time could be complared to being in the 80's now. Furthermore, the Age itself is just a number. The reason I took a note of David's post is the fact that older managers tend to be more reactive rather than proactive and arguably less dynamic and more dogmatic. Of course, you can always find ''special cases'' Such as Deng and his team of reformers who undertook the task of reforming the Chinese economy in the late 1970's.

LOL I agree to all of the above! Was just pulling your leg. In my opinion, athough I understand and respect the older generation (those who worth it not just because they are old) I believe that younger people should be encouraged to be involved.
In Victoria we are lucky that our Clubs are led by young people or (as in case of BHCC) preparing youngsters - in fact from junior age to become involved in administration and coaching!
CV executive members aren't that old either. Maybe agewise Trevor Stanning is the oldest but in terms of contribution in both club and CV administrative levels it's difficult to find such conscientious hard working people.

Desmond
25-03-2011, 02:50 PM
Thank you, Brian.
So from the above I am assuming that ACF sees its main role in approving national events. Also, some of them ACF also helped to organise.
Before you go changing the subject, hows about a retraction to your implied claim that the ACF has done nothing visible to promote chess in 3 or even 7 years?

Also with regards to your claim RE reading the newsletter and finding nothing in there, are you illiterate or just plain stupid?

Denis_Jessop
25-03-2011, 04:05 PM
Thank you, Brian.
So from the above I am assuming that ACF sees its main role in approving national events. Also, some of them ACF also helped to organise.

It's not that the ACF "sees" its main role as involvement in national (and international) affairs: that is its role.

There are State and Territory Associations to look after chess at that level.

If one wants a body that has overall power over Australian chess, a complete restructure of the ACF would be needed and some accommodation with State Associations.

In practical terms, that is not a goer in the foreseeable future. What's more, if it were, Australian chess players would be paying very much more to the ACF than they do now. Such a National body would need a paid secretariat and a national headquarters.

The first thing would be to see how long it look to settle the argument about where that should be - compare the history of the choice of Canberra as the National Capital:) .

I know that these "details" may be a nuisance for those who see only the glorious "big picture" but they are fundamental realities.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 05:45 PM
Most of the following have been undertaken (and approved) by officers and/or clubs under the auspices of the Australian Chess Federation (ACF):

Australian Championships (various)
Australian Open Championships (various)
Richard Pratt sponsorship of chess
Myer-Tan Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
ERGAS Junior Training Squads
Yulgilbar-Think Big Australian Chess Grand Prix (various)
Sydney International Open (inc Parramatta Chess Festival)
Oceania Zonal Championships (various)
Oceania Seniors Championship
FIDE Arbiters Seminar

A good list and we can add to these:

* Successful selection of players for numerous events. Hasn't been an appeal let alone a successful one for ages.
* Successful Olympiad appeals (the last two) - much better proportion of costs covered than for some time
* Even successfully getting player registrations processed for these overseas events is a big job!
* Successful processing of FIDE and ACF ratings and FIDE titles and transfers including ongoing improvements to the ACF ratings system
* Inauguration of the Arlauskas Medal and Romanas Arlauskas Award to recognise and fund the Australian Junior Player of the Year
* Successful creation of the Australian Junior Chess League with the result of a substantial increase in the number of people significantly and effectively involved in national chess admin
* Assistance to specific major Australian chess events.

and so on; those were just off the top of my head in a few minutes

The problem with Michael's whole tack is that he is looking for the ACF to be doing one big spectacular thing or a few big spectacular things, but actually our role primarily involves doing a very large number of mostly routine things and getting as many as possible right.

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 05:55 PM
Before you go changing the subject, hows about a retraction to your implied claim that the ACF has done nothing visible to promote chess in 3 or even 7 years?

Also with regards to your claim RE reading the newsletter and finding nothing in there, are you illiterate or just plain stupid?
On the contarary...Brain's response is the best Indication that ACF has done nothing to develop chess further but was simply sustaining whatever little infrustructure was there. If you feel that the list of tasks/events outlined by Brian is all that a national federation should strive to achieve and you are happy about it and so are others... then i would like to take my claim back! We have a wonderful national federation that is taking the game to the new heights. But allowing people to hold national championships, to travel to junior international events, hold zonals etc. I am sure none of these events would take place without ACF...I think my question was quite simple...all I was asking was..how has ACF moved chess forward? Take a look at websites for the Turkish, French, Spanish, Russian etc chess federations...I think are lost in translation here. If the role of a national federation is marely to ask for bids and to allocated the events. Then, we are definitely on the right track!

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 05:59 PM
The problem with Michael's whole tack is that he is looking for the ACF to be doing one big spectacular thing or a few big spectacular things, but actually our role primarily involves doing a very large number of mostly routine things and getting as many as possible right.

Agreed! This is indeed the problem and adding up to the list of country that see the ''big picture'': Greece, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Iran, Germany, Italy...

antichrist
25-03-2011, 07:58 PM
Mike, I try to be fair on these matters (maybe different from OTHER thread) and see both sides.

Our mate Shirty has previously implied that you do not contribute in chess administration, have you attempted to get involved in chess associations at state or national level?

You can maketh the cup runneth over with dynamism

Oepty
25-03-2011, 08:12 PM
I was not going to end my self imposed exile until tommorrow but was catching up on here after not being here, except for looking up one thing, for the week. I am just disappointed at the attitude of some people.
As far as I am concerned as a person who is primarily interested in juniors chess and on the AusJCL committee, although not the executive, the ACF has done won huge, massive, gigantic thing in the last few years. That is the creating of the AusJCL, a body specifically for the running of junior chess. This allowed there to be a total revamp of the Australian Juniors format which contributed to the great success of the 2011 Australian Juniors in Melbourne.
I also think the appointment of Brian Jones as Grand Prix Coordinator was an excellent move which has lead to Grand Prix to be in much better shape than it had been in the years leading up to that appointment.
Ian Murray's appointment as Olympiad Appeal coordinator was also an excellent appointment as he did an excellent job
The ACF also runs the ratings system, selections, awarding of tournaments, interactions with FIDE about ratings and titles and many other things.
I am not a fan of every decision the ACF makes but I think the total dismissal of them as a body is totally unfair and they get alot of things right.
See you tommorrow.
Scott

antichrist
25-03-2011, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by Scott Colliver
To go down the route of relying on Tornelo, a program that is owned by a businessman who has had differences with the ACF seems risky. What if it is suddenly not there?

Chessguru
It could be a good way of reconciling differences?

If it's "suddenly" not there then the same thing happens as if Bill Gletsos is "suddenly" not there - or SM or SP. You find something else

AC
I think this is telling and maybe not mentioned before. That is the rug could be pulled out at any time. Or maybe for a fee when everybody is tied in to the system??

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 08:12 PM
Michael's just moving the goalposts. He originally wanted tasks that made a significant visible contribution. There's been zillions of them but the problem is that it now turns out he looked straight past them all because he was looking for something different.


This is indeed the problem and adding up to the list of country that see the ''big picture'': Greece, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Iran, Germany, Italy...

None of these are culturally comparable to Australia; chess has much greater natural cultural advantages in several. You might as well say we should dig oil wells all over Melbourne and Sydney, because it works for the Saudis.

Now, what are you saying the big picture should be for Australia, how would you achieve it, and what did you contribute towards it when you were an ACF officebearer?

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 08:21 PM
Mike, I try to be fair on these matters (maybe different from OTHER thread) and see both sides.

Our mate Shirty has previously implied that you do not contribute in chess administration, have you attempted to get involved in chess associations at state or national level?

You can maketh the cup runneth over with dynamism

No, I think I would rather try to do things at Club Level..:).

ChessGuru
25-03-2011, 08:30 PM
If it's "suddenly" not there then the same thing happens as if Bill Gletsos is "suddenly" not there - or SM or SP. You find something else
AC
I think this is telling and maybe not mentioned before. That is the rug could be pulled out at any time. Or maybe for a fee when everybody is tied in to the system??

Wouldn't it be nice to even get close to a time where this could be of importance....at which time I'd be happy to have a legal contract keeping the rug in place for as long as you like. In the meantime wild speculation is good fun...

The issue at the moment is not a question of 'should we use Tornelo or not'.... the issue is that I wanted to trial some free software which might be able to assist event organisers and ratings officers to save time. It would also possibly benefit players (with improved communication and presentation). The ACF doesn't have to do anything at all.

The ACF response to this idea was to immediately ban it, censor any mention of it in the ACF Bulletin, threaten to not FIDE rate Ballarat, vilify me, punish my other business interests by removing links in wherever they had them, and 'consider futher actions'. Wow! All that because of an idea....

Not since someone mentioned the idea that Jesus Christ might not be the saviour has anyone seen as violent and explosive reaction.

Bill is the High Priest of Ratings in Australia and to him it is Blasphemy to even mention Elo, or TornElo... so now there is a jihad against me. How long do these things last?

ChessGuru
25-03-2011, 09:10 PM
Let us indeed look at the bigger picture, though one he would obviously like everyone to conveniently ignore.
And then he proceeds to nut out some details...:lol: Hey, at least he tried...

1) Previously claiming on his website that he was an International Arbiter even though he was not.
Yep, and I've admitted that was wrong and apologised for it. If you wanted to give any lenience in this regard then you'd also mention that I'd completed the requirements, but stalled the process at the fee the ACF was going to charge ... (also impressive that Bill is the only person ever to notice this, thanks to his trawling historical websites! A true testament to his detail orientation and lack of anything better to do - like work towards achieving ACF goals.)

2) Setting up a schools competition ... easily to the uninitiated lead them into believing it was the official national school teams championship.
3) Setting up a website www.chess.asn.au ... the uninitiated could be mistaken into believing it was the official website for the national chess body in Australia. ..."Actually, that Association was created some years ago with the intention of competing with and eventually replacing the ACF."
I won't argue naming semantics again - we'll just agree to disagree. A lot of concern of the "uninitiated" - I've been told more than a few times by Chess Fundamentalists that they'd prefer people to remain "uninitiated" rather than be playing chess without the ACF protective cover. I guess better to remain a savage than believe in the wrong (different) philosophy. But of course the ACF makes no attempt to actually initiate anyone...a totally non-evanjelical Fundamentalism.

And, of course, more Blasphemy. I believe that the ACF does not have DIVINE rights over chess - but earns a privilidge from the chess players of this country to represent them to FIDE by each and every year performing and developing chess in this country. If they fail in their duty then they should lose their honours...no, nothing is sacred.

4) The last time he was on the ACF was during 2004 as the CV Delegate ... It was discovered in the following 24 hours that the state junior leagues were in fact unaware of his proposed changes and all the motions were then recisinded.
That was a good 'big picture' - no details there. :) I can't recall any details myself either; probably some motions about Aus Junior having 2 games a day...and probably was 5-7 years ahead of it's time. :D And by "state junior leagues" it probably meant one Archbishop with a big stick. Funny that the ACF passed whatever the motions were - but changed their mind the next day. That's strong convictions.

Other than crimes of Blasphemy, Puffery and Failure to Attend Confessional from the Right Priest ... do you have anything else to add to my list of crimes; perhaps something within the last 5-7 years would be nice. The readers of CC want something new and 7 years is what you get for murder, arson, war crimes and terrorism.

Maybe Serial Blasphemy can be the charge - have you got a crucifix handy?

Do you want to know what I've achieved in the last 7 years? :lol: Thought not. Doesn't count anyway because it was all done with false idols.

So back on track please people.... I'm interested in moving this country forwards and I'd like the ACF to be a part of the huge chess wave that is sweeping the country. What can we add or change to make the ACF more progressive?

Hobbes
25-03-2011, 09:31 PM
The ACF response to this idea was to immediately ban it, censor any mention of it in the ACF Bulletin, threaten to not FIDE rate Ballarat, vilify me, punish my other business interests by removing links in wherever they had them, and 'consider futher actions'. Wow! All that because of an idea....

Not since someone mentioned the idea that Jesus Christ might not be the saviour has anyone seen as violent and explosive reaction.

Bill is the High Priest of Ratings in Australia and to him it is Blasphemy to even mention Elo, or TornElo... so now there is a jihad against me. How long do these things last?

Please, this is too sad, I am running out of tissues.

Bollard
25-03-2011, 09:48 PM
The ACF response to this idea was to immediately ban it, censor any mention of it in the ACF Bulletin, threaten to not FIDE rate Ballarat, vilify me, punish my other business interests by removing links in wherever they had them, and 'consider futher actions'. Wow! All that because of an idea....

I haven't detected any threat to not FIDE rate the tournament. In light in the acknowledged use of electronic device (widespread or not) Shirty has quite sensibly paused and sought direction from the ACF. Remember that FIDE is a beauracracy and if there is any hint of something suspect they are likely to just disregard the whole event. What are the players appeal rights then?

Better to consider the whole situation now and either prepare a package of information to be forwarded to FIDE with the tournament results setting out why it is all OK, or at least be ready to answer any questions that may come back.

Kaitlin
25-03-2011, 10:10 PM
If they didnt like your first idea..... you should just try and think of a new idea :D

Desmond
25-03-2011, 10:10 PM
Michael's just moving the goalposts. He originally wanted tasks that made a significant visible contribution. There's been zillions of them but the problem is that it now turns out he looked straight past them all because he was looking for something different.Yeah. He looked and looked in the ACF newsletter but just couldn't find anything visible.

Except the newsletter. is. itself. visible. :wall:

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 10:37 PM
The ACF response to this idea was to immediately ban it, censor any mention of it in the ACF Bulletin, threaten to not FIDE rate Ballarat, vilify me, punish my other business interests by removing links in wherever they had them, and 'consider futher actions'. Wow! All that because of an idea....

Actually the ACF decision as concerns the Newsletter was not triggered by the Tornelo concept itself but by the Tornelo website containing misleading wording implying that Tornelo was connected to the ACF. Despite a change of wording the problem is still there.

The idea of limiting the range of programs the ACF would endorse for ACF events was also initially provoked by that situation, but is something that may have sooner or later happened anyway irrespective of Tornelo as there are issues with other programs being considered there.

Note that I declared conflict of interest and abstained on both these motions.

The threat to not FIDE rate Ballarat was just one officebearer saying he would refer something to the ACF Exec in view of a belief that there were irregularities. I'm very confident it will be FIDE-rated - unless FIDE decides not to accept it of course.

MichaelBaron
25-03-2011, 10:41 PM
Michael's just moving the goalposts. He originally wanted tasks that made a significant visible contribution. There's been zillions of them but the problem is that it now turns out he looked straight past them all because he was looking for something different.



None of these are culturally comparable to Australia; chess has much greater natural cultural advantages in several. You might as well say we should dig oil wells all over Melbourne and Sydney, because it works for the Saudis.

Now, what are you saying the big picture should be for Australia, how would you achieve it, and what did you contribute towards it when you were an ACF officebearer?

Haha, here comes the favorite question what did i contribute :) :) :)?
Re: cultural compatibility - may be it is something for us to learn. Lets learn from the best! I would rather not get started on Aus culture here (those on my Facebook know well enough what I think about the ''australian ways'' of cultural and intellectual development) but the simple fact is - we should look into the leading practices and learn the best we can.

Chess Guru may be opportunistic, selfish, corrupt etc. - but he does have a lot of innovative ideas and he is a talented manager! You can hate the fact that I have zero tolerance for the Auzzie ''take it easy'' approach to things as well as the fact that despite living here for many years, and quick to point out lack how uncultured and short-sighted (in my opinion that is - I bet you disagree) The Australian society is, but whenever I point it out that our Chess scene is not going anywhere and there are no ACF-triggered developments that are taking place - there is nothing to be said in response...You can ask me ''what have you done bla bla bla'' or you can go on talking about the great way ACF processes ratings...but in effect, there is no evidence of any kind of development movement/plan happening.

Anyway, if ACF offcials seriously and sincerely feel that their job is mainly about ''caretaking'' by the meaning of processing the ratings and approving selections...this thread is rather pointless :doh:

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2011, 11:48 PM
I see Michael didn't make any real attempt to say what the big picture for Australian chess should be or how to acheive it, beyond proposing a general revolution of Australian social attitudes that while laudable is obviously waaay beyond our means.


You can hate the fact that I have zero tolerance for the Auzzie ''take it easy'' approach to things as well as the fact that despite living here for many years, and quick to point out lack how uncultured and short-sighted (in my opinion that is - I bet you disagree) The Australian society is,

Actually I don't hate the idea of standing up to that "Aussie approach" at all. But I frequently feel that the slack overgeneralised nature of your slagging of the ACF involves an intellectually lazy approach that embodies that "take it easy" thing and makes you part of the problem you complain about, and perhaps more of an Aussie than you realise. :P

As for your bet, you lost it, whatever it was.


but whenever I point it out that our Chess scene is not going anywhere and there are no ACF-triggered developments that are taking place - there is nothing to be said in response...

Because you just assert it, provide no evidence, and ignore the contrary evidence that is presented to you.

Do you seriously believe that none of the items listed above can be called "ACF-triggered developments"?

Do you seriously believe that our chess scene is going nowhere when our number of GMs is set to have more than doubled in less than a decade (to say nothing of the future 10 years or so) and when we have so many excellent junior talents coming through?

Do you seriously believe that spelling chess with a capital C for no reason improves your argument in any way?

Address the matter with evidence and credible argument. Or keep being a lazy ocker with slack overgeneralisations.


but in effect, there is no evidence of any kind of development movement/plan happening.

There are development initiatives (like the junior squad). Denis in particular is keen on us working towards broader development goals, mainly in order to more strategically determine what to do with our now healthy financial reserves. Constructive and specific input into this process is always welcome.

sleepless
26-03-2011, 10:27 AM
Actually the ACF decision as concerns the Newsletter was not triggered by the Tornelo concept itself but by the Tornelo website containing misleading wording implying that Tornelo was connected to the ACF. Despite a change of wording the problem is still there.


Yes, you only have to compare the cheeky Tornelo url http://auschess.tornelo.com/ with the ACF's http://www.auschess.org.au/ Of course the initial bipolar-like rant here is another issue completely and harms ChessKids branding.

Paul Cavezza
26-03-2011, 10:32 AM
Let's stop the song and dance- it's not about links on websites, or misinformation, it's about two things:

1. People do not trust David Cordover
2. The ACF's grip on control, and resistance against anything that would make things transparent.

You can explain every comment from Gletsos in the past few weeks to either one of these points. He was instantly sniping at every opportunity in tournament threads and it was obviously a personal thing. There is no place for an objective view on a potentially innovative software.

I'd love it if events started to not be rated. It would mess up Australian ratings and any talk of "accuracy" would be out the window forever, but more than that: it would show you the true state of Australian chess: a complete and utter standstill that it'd be brilliant if people and clubs started resisting together.

Basil
26-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Let's stop the song and dance- it's not about links on websites, or misinformation, it's about two things:

1. People do not trust David Cordover
2. The ACF's grip on control, and resistance against anything that would make things transparent.
You appear to suffer from the same deficiency as Michael Baron. His was wanting to make concrete, yours is about halting a musical (of David Cordover's creation, viz this thread). The deficiencies in the styling of this thread and subsequent goalpost moving have been well and truly laid bare.

As for for the merits of Tornelo, there are threads for that. As for the 'ACF' and 'control' being a bad thing ... well dicky-doo, that's what elected bodies do. Duh!

And as for your assertion that people do not trust David Cordover, well tickle me pink - the science on that one is most certainly in.

ChessGuru
26-03-2011, 10:54 AM
Yes, you only have to compare the cheeky Tornelo url

Cheeky? What? The whole idea, the entire point of Tornelo is that it is a TOOL for the ACF to use!! It belongs to them... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it. Tornelo is just a tool on offer that MIGHT, only MIGHT, help clubs, organisers, players, arbiters or ratings officers. MIGHT. But nobody will ever know because the ACF is terrified of change.

Cheeky or undermining or misleading would be to setup Tornelo Ratings - take the ACF numbers and go to all clubs and organisers and say "hey, the ACF smells bad, here is a new ratings system - it's free, the ACF does nothing for you anyway - why not just get ratings with Tornelo and save a few bucks.".

But no. That's not what I did. I went to the ACF ratings officer and asked for help. I showed the ACF President, told him my plans - asked for feedback. And then sponsored Ballarat so we could try out the new TOOL for displaying ACF Ratings and tournament results. Everyone I talked to was excited by the possibilities, keen to give it a go. And the ACF ratings officer responded by saying "I will never help you". Something is wrong there.

I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat. People have free will and should be allowed to choose. The ACF has reacted insanely...to be so restrictive, to try and kill something new, to not even allow players the option to look at something new. I believe this is symptomatic of a deeper problem...one which is holding chess back from reaching its potential.

Even if there is no trust because of some old grudges -- fine, big deal. That doesn't mean the ACF should behave like this. Nobody's asking for Tornelo to replace SP or the Ratings System....nothing changes for the ACF, no risks. All that we're hoping is that the ACF said "hey, a new idea...interesting". Nothing else. They're not endorsing it, approving it, voting on it, using it....it's just a new idea and they should respond with "how interesting" and not "KILL IT!"....it is a real problem.

MichaelBaron
26-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Let's stop the song and dance- it's not about links on websites, or misinformation, it's about two things:

1. People do not trust David Cordover
2. The ACF's grip on control, and resistance against anything that would make things transparent.

.

Of course! The reality is that with all of our shortcomings, problems and issues - what we do at MCC is aimed at development and further growth. Interesting to see how much the MCC has grown over the last couple of years. MCC championship is way stronger than the NSW championship. In fact I suspect that Noble Park and Canterbury championships are also stronger than the NSW championships...At MCC we are experiencing a lot of failures (as part of the rapid development and growth)....yet becoming more successful! Similar things can be said (in a non-chess context) about the Chinese economy (now the 2nd biggest in the world), Google and Microsoft.

Curiously, In China - The government's focus on control is transparent - yet the controls are not used to block all of the new developments. I got a lot more to say about it...but speaking of MCC - Time to check my email and head off to the Saturday Allegro :)

Spiny Norman
26-03-2011, 11:40 AM
The whole idea, the entire point of Tornelo is that it is a TOOL for the ACF to use!! It belongs to them... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it. Tornelo is just a tool on offer that MIGHT, only MIGHT, help clubs, organisers, players, arbiters or ratings officers. MIGHT. But nobody will ever know because the ACF is terrified of change.
David, this is not correct. Can I refer you back to the initial questions I asked about the Tornelo system:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12832

where in post #7 I asked:

Q. would it be possible for Tornelo to be released under an Open Source licence, so that those of us with programming experience could make and/or recommend improvements?

and you responded:

A. Open source - not possible. Tornelo is a spin-off of the tournament management software used by my business... we need to keep that commercial advantage in our private domain. Also there is the potential to licence the software to other countries, generating advertising revenue etc.

How can something which is (in your own words) "commercial advantage in [y]our private domain" also "belong to [the ACF] ... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it".

Are you now saying that the ACF can release the code as Open Source if they choose (since it belongs to them)?

Spiny Norman
26-03-2011, 11:46 AM
Regarding the basic thrust of this thread, it seems to me that the complaint can be summed up along the following lines:

Q. why are these (mostly) old fogeys running chess in Australia?

which, when you take the unnecessary ageism out of it, boils down to:

Q. why isn't someone else running chess in Australia?

Well, I'm not sure how to answer that ... but I will point out that most of the people involved in chess administration do so at the club level ... that's where I make my contribution.

I've been informally asked a number of times whether I would be interested in running for a position with CV (though never the ACF) and I took advice from those in the know who suggested "Do one (club admin) or the other (state or ACF admin), but don't try to do both".

The CV and ACF committees perform a largely thankless task ... but I, for one, appreciate the time and effort they put in.

ChessGuru
26-03-2011, 02:14 PM
How can something which is (in your own words) "commercial advantage in [y]our private domain" also "belong to [the ACF] ... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it".

Yep, sorry clearly poor communication -- do you feel that you are in control of your Gmail account, your Word Documents, XL Spreadsheets, Sales Force CRM or Xero accounting files? Or do you only use Open Source software - and how often do you modify the source code for your Open Office suite?

You probably don't need to release the Gmail Source Code to 'control' your own email account. Equally there are plenty of open source projects which aren't practically available except as a paid option (Trixbox would be one example).

Well that's the level of control the ACF could expect....but perhaps a little bit more in that they can also submit feature requests and detail some specific requirements before starting to use it.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2011, 03:04 PM
You probably don't need to release the Gmail Source Code to 'control' your own email account. Equally there are plenty of open source projects which aren't practically available except as a paid option (Trixbox would be one example).

Well that's the level of control the ACF could expect....but perhaps a little bit more in that they can also submit feature requests and detail some specific requirements before starting to use it.

A few posts up you said "Even if there is no trust because of some old grudges -- fine, big deal. That doesn't mean the ACF should behave like this."

Assuming for the sake of discussion that there is no trust for whatever reason, it follows that the ACF should expect to be offered far greater control over the project before taking it even remotely seriously.

I certainly wouldn't use Gmail if I feared (rightly or wrongly) that they would misuse my emails.

Your point about needing to maintain control over the project to keep commercial advantage is fine. But in the ACF's case you say you want the ACF to use it for free. So there is nothing to stop you from providing the ACF with its own copy to modify as it likes and run on its own website on the contractual condition that this copy is not passed on to anyone else. There is no commercial disadvantage for you in doing this since you weren't going to make money out of the ACF using it anyway.

ChessGuru
26-03-2011, 03:44 PM
I certainly wouldn't use Gmail if I feared (rightly or wrongly) that they would misuse my emails.
Except that all the data contained in the ratings system is Public Information anyway. Your emails are probably not in the public domain.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2011, 03:59 PM
Except that all the data contained in the ratings system is Public Information anyway.

Not really. The rating system has three components:

* the previous rating states of players
* the results of players
* the methods for converting both to the new rating states of players.

Of these, basic data concerning the first are currently public, but some aspects (such as RDs) are only approximately so while others (such as volatilities and internal ratings of unrated players) are not at all.

Most of the player results are publically available, but compiling them would be a lot of work for any competitor.

Broad details of the ratings formulae are available, but not enough for a competitor to replicate.

Whether these things should be all published is another question ... one on which I'm finding that the risk of competition is actually a strong argument for not doing so.

Rincewind
26-03-2011, 04:39 PM
Whether these things should be all published is another question ... one on which I'm finding that the risk of competition is actually a strong argument for not doing so.

I would argue that the publication of previous rating states doesn't significantly alter the exposure to competition.

In the case of the ACF system we have RDs and volatilities and a competitor that wanted to kick-start their own rating system would just begin with best guess estimates and in a few periods would no longer require the ACF values.After all the most important piece of information is the rating itself. Not publishing the RDs and volatilities for reasons of protecting ACF intellectual property is a bit like Robert Oppenheimer sending the Germans a blueprint of the atomic bomb and not telling them the detonation device he was planning to use.

The specific rating formula you could argue does increase the exposure and that there is IP that is worth protecting - but only to a competition which wishes to implement exactly the same method which is (I think) only a slight risk. Also given the use of computationally expensive preliminary ratings which in effect means the only way to replicate the rating process is to include all games played in that rating period again I think an exact copy is at best a very slight risk.

Patrick Byrom
26-03-2011, 05:15 PM
The specific rating formula you could argue does increase the exposure and that there is IP that is worth protecting - but only to a competition which wishes to implement exactly the same method which is (I think) only a slight risk. Also given the use of computationally expensive preliminary ratings which in effect means the only way to replicate the rating process is to include all games played in that rating period again I think an exact copy is at best a very slight risk.
The main threat to a rating system is player (and organiser) defection. For example, in Qld the Qld Junior Rating List has made the ACF Rapid system extinct. But the QJRL doesn't use any of the ACF's IP.


I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat. People have free will and should be allowed to choose. The ACF has reacted insanely...to be so restrictive, to try and kill something new, to not even allow players the option to look at something new. I believe this is symptomatic of a deeper problem...one which is holding chess back from reaching its potential.
Tornelo isn't banned. It can be used to pair any event except ACF and GP events, and can be used at these events (except to do the pairings). So players will have plenty of opportunity to see it. If it wants to be more widely used, it might be a good start to actually implement the Dutch Swiss Pairing rules.

Spiny Norman
26-03-2011, 05:24 PM
Yep, sorry clearly poor communication -- do you feel that you are in control of your Gmail account ...
In any business context I would not use Gmail or any other "free" offshore service, because I would not have control over either the systems or the data. I would happily licence software from any reputable vendor in return for which they would receive a licence fee.

EDIT: most commercial software is sold either (a) as a perpetual licence; or (b) as a timed licence (e.g. 12 months). In the case of hosting agreements, my business email is hosted with WebCentral, and my website is hosted offshore with IHOSTASP.NET ... in both cases I have complete control of the data (email mailboxes, website content, SQL databases which are backed up daily and downloaded to my NAS).

If you were prepared to enter into a licensing arrangement with the ACF, and assuming they were happy with the terms, then of course I would have no objection. I also think there would be no chance of onlookers misunderstanding who owns the software/systems.

Lets say Croydon decided it wanted to use Tornelo for all our tournaments. I would expect some kind of hosting agreement to be in place, to give our club access to the data. Some kind of standard escrow agreement would probably be just fine.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2011, 05:50 PM
I would argue that the publication of previous rating states doesn't significantly alter the exposure to competition.

I suspect that any one of the matters that are not fully published could be fully published without altering it much. Possibly the full SP files are a bigger risk than either the exact workings of the system or the exact previous rating state. A competitor who has the same results can run a reasonably close approximation of the system, but a competitor who lacks the same results will not provide a competitive product even if they have the system details perfectly.

antichrist
27-03-2011, 01:34 PM
So what is the bottom line? Does ACF make good money out of ratings? would ACF lose such money if tornelo takes over?

Santa
27-03-2011, 06:20 PM
I note your point though it's restriction to communist parties is a bit obscure. For example, Konrad Adenauer was President of the Federal Republic of Germany at the age of 90 and US Supreme Court Judges hold office for life. Numerical age is of little consequence - it's one's physical and psychological condition that counts, that being a matter of fortune among other things. David has perhaps unwittingly pointed that out in referring to my passion for cycling (among other things that he doesn't mention). How many people are fortunate enough to be able to cycle quite vigorously at the age of 75 and enjoy it? In my case, I'm also a member of the metaphorical Lance Armstrong Club.

DJ

When I first met Michael, he had a pretty strong accent. It's no surprise to me that he would mention the communist parties he did.

Santa
27-03-2011, 06:34 PM
If it was just getting people to contribute ideas it would be so much easier! It's also about getting people to contribute time and work. Most of the ACF's most vehement critics (CG excepted of course) are among the laziest people on earth. The exceptions that prove the rule would rather be doing the same thing for pay.

I think that part of the problem is the geographic vastness of Australia; it's fairly easy for a group of people in geographic proximity to get together and discuss matters than for people scattered all over Australia. Especially for volunteers.

Not that we in WA are overly blessed with volunteers:(, we might not be as well-off as Tassie.

yes, I know that the internet helps, but I've no idea what a charming chap Kevin is (or isn't), and the best way to find out's probably at a cafe in Lygon St, or in Mandurah, over a coffee.

Libby2
27-03-2011, 06:45 PM
The main threat to a rating system is player (and organiser) defection. For example, in Qld the Qld Junior Rating List has made the ACF Rapid system extinct. But the QJRL doesn't use any of the ACF's IP.


And NSWJCL runs their own rating system as well. Although I'm still to understand the reasons (other than historic).

Rapid rating junior games is inexpensive. I rapid rate my school club matches each term. The children to move from there to ACTJCL events and beyond are taking that rating data into and out of the bigger pools.

I use the system that follows my school players through all events and activities - that makes sense to me.

As a long-time participant in David's national interschool events, the children in my group are generally excited (flattered) by more generous ratings in his system. I haven't taken up the offer to put my events through his system but have thought about it. Anything that offers a wide (or national) pool makes some sense to me but the NSWJCL and QJCL internal systems really don't.

As for the thread, apart from David's special skill to fire many up and have them shouldering arms, it's a shame not to involve new faces on a committee. Unfortunately, change only happens on many such committees when people make their own decision to move on, so rather than a handover you seem to be filling a void (and often multiple voids) with anyone you can scramble into a job. If you put your hand up, lots of people have a lot to say about what they think you should be doing, and everything you've done wrong, and not much else.

Santa
27-03-2011, 06:55 PM
The MCC is a club; the ACF is a national federation. The two bodies are quite different both in their constitution and in the issues they face. The ACF Executive is not the ACF but its elected executive. At the elections in January their were no nominations other than from those elected. There also exist the ACF Council and the National Conference both of which take precedence over the Executive and are differently constituted (the Executive doesn't even have voting rights at a Conference). Criticism of the Executive as the ACF is simply misplaced.

DJ


I somewhat disagree: the ACF is, properly, a club whose members are the state associations.

If there were no other nominations, then perhaps it would be a Good Thing for the incumbents to seek out their (and their colleagues') potential successors. Competent state and club officials should be good prospects.

I've said it before; I regret that when I was at Waverley I didn't encourage others to do some of the duties of club captain when I was club captain, that I didn't encourage other members to help with the junior club, and when I was president I didn't encourage other office-bearers to share their jobs. By doing so, we could have ready for someone to step in to fill the breach when office bearers left (as I did) or had had enough.

Santa
27-03-2011, 07:16 PM
I

) Setting up a website www.chess.asn.au entitled "Chess Association of Australia Inc" and was advertising on that website Accredited Professional Chess Coaching courses. Again the uninitiated could be mistaken into believing it was the official website for the national chess body in Australia. In fact here on Chesschat whilst running for CV President in 2009 he said "Actually, that Association was created some years ago with the intention of competing with and eventually replacing the ACF."
.

When I read allegations, I try to verify the claims made.

I can verify that David owns chess.asn.au, but the content I see is at http://chessclub.com.au/

Santa
27-03-2011, 07:25 PM
Some organisations have time limits on how long a person can hold the floor and a limit of how many people can speak on an issue. As long as allocating an overall total time that an issue may take. Gullotine finish I suppose it could be called.

Then there are the motions that "The speaker be no longer heard," "The question be put" and even "The question not be put." The last two, if carried, end the discussion.

Ian Murray
27-03-2011, 07:29 PM
When I read allegations, I try to verify the claims made.

I can verify that David owns chess.asn.au, but the content I see is at http://chessclub.com.au/
Try entering chess.asn.au manually into the url field - you'll see it now redirects to chessclub.com.au

Santa
27-03-2011, 07:36 PM
In any business context I would not use Gmail or any other "free" offshore service, because I would not have control over either the systems or the data..

I would not either, and when I used Cannex to find money lenders, and used its link to one of the money lenders, and asked the lucky winner for details, I got a response from a hotmail or similar address.

I flatly refused to deal with them; the minimum I would expect is email from the domain where I enquired, which I can verify from the headers came from its service, and where the reply address is appropriate. Ideally, it would also be digitally signed.

Bill Gletsos
27-03-2011, 07:44 PM
When I read allegations, I try to verify the claims made.Good for you, but I did not say he was still doing it.

I can verify that David owns chess.asn.au, but the content I see is at http://chessclub.com.au/You are over 2 years too late.
It first appeared back in 2006 as was discussed here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4776) and was still active in August 2009.

Oepty
27-03-2011, 07:50 PM
:lol: Best of luck finding your other eye.

Captain, I am failing to understand your point, why you quote one sentence out of the post and what there is to laugh about.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
27-03-2011, 07:52 PM
Captain, I am failing to understand your point, why you quote one sentence out of the post and what there is to laugh about.
ScottHe means it is a one-eyed point of view.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 07:53 PM
I think that part of the problem is the geographic vastness of Australia; it's fairly easy for a group of people in geographic proximity to get together and discuss matters than for people scattered all over Australia. Especially for volunteers.

The ACF actually runs most of its Council meetings as teleconferences. These are not without their problems; at times the signal is poor and it is not always possible to do justice to everything on the agenda without the meeting going for far too long and costing too much. But it's better than the old days of having meetings only in person, making involvement from distant areas more or less impossible.

Santa
27-03-2011, 08:00 PM
Actually the ACF decision as concerns the Newsletter was not triggered by the Tornelo concept itself but by the Tornelo website containing misleading wording implying that Tornelo was connected to the ACF. Despite a change of wording the problem is still there.

The idea of limiting the range of programs the ACF would endorse for ACF events was also initially provoked by that situation, but is something that may have sooner or later happened anyway irrespective of Tornelo as there are issues with other programs being considered there.

Note that I declared conflict of interest and abstained on both these motions.


AS I understand the (draft) newsletter, the ACF executive has seen fit to prohibit the use of programs endorsed by FIDE, and to prohibit manual pairings., and has imposed censorship on the newsletter.

I am a former editor of OTM, and Jammo (then Mr VCA) and I regularly disagreed about its content and format, but as far as I can recall, my view always prevailed.


Could I mention I'm amazed?

Oepty
27-03-2011, 08:01 PM
He means it is a one-eyed point of view.

I got that far, Why is it a one eyed point of view?
Scott

Santa
27-03-2011, 08:02 PM
Try entering chess.asn.au manually into the url field - you'll see it now redirects to chessclub.com.au

That is exactly what I did.

I also get the registration information which I summarise here:
18:00 [summer@penguin ~]$ whois chess.asn.au | egrep 'Domain|Registrant|Eligibility'
Domain Name: chess.asn.au
Registrant: David Cordover
Eligibility Type: Club
Registrant Contact ID: CODA1221
Registrant Contact Name: David Cordover
Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 08:11 PM
AS I understand the (draft) newsletter, the ACF executive has seen fit to prohibit the use of programs endorsed by FIDE,

Not really. The ACF has approved those FIDE-endorsed programs that are in use to run tournaments in Australia. While those FIDE-endorsed programs that nobody is using are not currently approved, if anyone really wanted to use one of them I'm sure they would be added to the list.


and to prohibit manual pairings.

False. The ACF has only indicated that if a program is used to do the draw it needs to be an approved one. Manual pairings are not prohibited at all, nor are manual overrides of computer pairings considered to be incorrect.


, and has imposed censorship on the newsletter.

That's rather like saying that a government has imposed censorship on its own press releases. It's our newsletter so the use of the term "censorship" (which refers to a government controlling publications by others) is erroneous.


I am a former editor of OTM, and Jammo (then Mr VCA) and I regularly disagreed about its content and format, but as far as I can recall, my view always prevailed.

Well perhaps it's our good fortune that the ACF does not have Newsletter Editors who regularly disagree about newsletter content and format. Or perhaps it's our good fortune that we allow newsletter editors a very large degree of freedom as to what they include and only rarely see any reason to restrict content.


Could I mention I'm amazed?

Sure, but I can't see why. :lol:

Oepty
27-03-2011, 08:12 PM
Scott, I was only referring to the last paragraph of of four. The first three discussed ratings. The fourth was an oblique commentary germane to the thread title, where the conduct of Cordover is yet again overwhelmingly dubious, in that:

- he has created a misleading title ("what is missing", then attacks those present)
- makes a point of creating an (crass) issue of age, then denies its an issue while butter doesn't melt in the mouth
- claims mia culpa over his no-lose offer of software to the ACF, only to have his pecker chopped by his own words
and on and on and on ... I mean the guy has more form than a racing guide

and all Libby2 can do is to sidestep this entire disdainful farce, and obliquely refer to a day when the incumbents move on so that change might occur. That level of one-eyed commentary isn't worth the pixel it's printed on.

Well I think Libby's point is quite valid and not biased at all. I don't think it is a good thing if a committee when losing a member struggles to replace them. It means sometimes you do not get the right person for the role. Not saying this about any particular person or even committee.
Scott

Santa
27-03-2011, 08:17 PM
The ACF actually runs most of its Council meetings as teleconferences. These are not without their problems; at times the signal is poor and it is not always possible to do justice to everything on the agenda without the meeting going for far too long and costing too much. But it's better than the old days of having meetings only in person, making involvement from distant areas more or less impossible.

and I expect that in time it will move to video conferencing, but those are nowhere near knowing each other personally. GW I've known for years (or knew years ago), and DC was one of my juniors at Waverley.

When people make claims about other people, I tend to judge those making the claims more than the subject of the claims. WG, I've never met, but I have formed an option of him, considering the remarks he's made about me and others.

I'd not criticise DC for his tact, I'm not noted for mine (though I do try, sometimes). David's pen pictures, from what I know, seemed about right.

Oepty
27-03-2011, 08:21 PM
Scott, I don't think anyone thinks this a good thing! In any event, that is hardly the thrust of Libby2's point.

There isn't a skerrick of evidence to credibly support that the present team is responsible for the vacant positions on the ACF. Just the usual miseries with their fiddling sticks.

I must have totally misread that paragraph of Libby's post then. I failed again

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 08:31 PM
and I expect that in time it will move to video conferencing, but those are nowhere near knowing each other personally.

That is perhaps one of the reasons why the ACF tries to hold one in-person Council meeting per year, although phone hookup option is still available for those who need it. For instance I've personally met all but one of the current Council.


There isn't a skerrick of evidence to credibly support that the present team is responsible for the vacant positions on the ACF. Just the usual miseries with their fiddling sticks.

I actually don't think Libby was talking about current vacancies (the vacant or semi-vacant non-exec officebearers). Seems she was suggesting it is good to have "new faces" on the committee (and to arrange and manage transitions to them) irrespective of vacancies. Not expressing any view on this, just saying that's what I took her to be saying.

Something I'll say about this - I think that ideally people who are going to step down from something should give plenty of notice so that the organisation can find a successor. For instance I am moving on from selections (for various reasons) in the near future and gave the Council one year's notice of my intention to do so. I don't agree with the idea that if you are going to step down from something voluntary you should have to find a successor yourself. Some people just don't like having to arm-twist.

Basil
27-03-2011, 08:37 PM
I actually don't think Libby was talking about current vacancies (the vacant or semi-vacant non-exec officebearers).
I've had a re-read (3rd actually) and I still hold the same opinion (although if I add extra weight to Libby2's last sentence, I can be convinced at a pinch. With Scott and you having a different take to mine, I'm satisfied that there's sufficient reason for me to remove my lambaste. Doing so now.

Garvinator
27-03-2011, 08:38 PM
I've had a re-read (3rd actually) and I still hold the same opinion (although if I add extra weight to Libby2's last sentence, I can be convinced at a pinch. With Scott and you having a different take to mine, I'm satisfied that there's sufficient reason for me to remove my lambaste. Doing so now.Or Libby could clarify what she meant ;)

Basil
27-03-2011, 08:41 PM
Or Libby could clarify what she meant ;)
Sure. At the end of the day, it (relatively) matters naught.

Santa
27-03-2011, 08:52 PM
David, this is not correct. Can I refer you back to the initial questions I asked about the Tornelo system:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12832

where in post #7 I asked:

Q. would it be possible for Tornelo to be released under an Open Source licence, so that those of us with programming experience could make and/or recommend improvements?

and you responded:

A. Open source - not possible. Tornelo is a spin-off of the tournament management software used by my business... we need to keep that commercial advantage in our private domain. Also there is the potential to licence the software to other countries, generating advertising revenue etc.

How can something which is (in your own words) "commercial advantage in [y]our private domain" also "belong to [the ACF] ... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it".

Are you now saying that the ACF can release the code as Open Source if they choose (since it belongs to them)?


Like you, Norman, I'd like to see it open source, and I'd prefer to use open source for club management, pairings and ratings.

However, I'd not criticise DC for wanting to keep it private. Some organisations Slashdot, Wikipedia and Red Hat for example, release their source code while others such as Google, which also provides free services, does not. Note, Red Hat doesn't really provide free services as such any more, one has to pay for its products such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but all its source code can be downloaded by anyone with the inclination and bandwidth.

Id be more concerned about the maths (which DC assured me is easily fixed), but then the maths used by the ACF is undocumented and thats a serious concern.

Santa
27-03-2011, 09:04 PM
A. Open source - not possible. Tornelo is a spin-off of the tournament management software used by my business... we need to keep that commercial advantage in our private domain. Also there is the potential to licence the software to other countries, generating advertising revenue etc.

How can something which is (in your own words) "commercial advantage in [y]our private domain" also "belong to [the ACF] ... it is the ACF ratings system, they own it, they control it".


I saw David say that the data belongs to the ACF. Not the software, not the system. It's not that different from your PC: Microsoft owns the software, and permits users its use under certain conditions.

I also saw that he promised the data would be available in a readily-comprehended format, at any time. It's a promise easily tested, and David might agree to an escrow arrangement such that the source code would become available (and held by a third party) if David sought to change the conditions unreasonably.

David:
Consider your service as your competitive advantage. If you can provide a good, satisfactory service, better than your competitors, then you win. If and when you lose customers, it's time to sharpen up your act. It's fair to assume that Topalov and Anand had access to all the same information, but in the end it was Anand's better chess (not openings!) that prevailed.

Basil
27-03-2011, 09:13 PM
It's not that different from your PC: Microsoft owns the software, and permits users its use under certain conditions.
Microsoft achieved an all-but-insurmountable strangle-hold with this idea. Gates certainly became the richest man on the planet because of it.

Printer and console games manufacturers well-understand the junkie concept of flog the machine cheap and the hapless bastards will pay and pay and pay.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 11:13 PM
I saw David say that the data belongs to the ACF. Not the software, not the system. It's not that different from your PC: Microsoft owns the software, and permits users its use under certain conditions.

But user data saved in the software in such cases is not generally hosted on Microsoft's webspace, rather it is saved on the user's own computer. A sticking point in this case would be that the ACF ratings calculations and data would essentially be held and conducted on the Tornelo website, a website owned by a private company.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 11:25 PM
Every member is detail focused, controlling, blaming and rules oriented....

David has clarified this comment to which I initially took a moderate degree of offence.

I interpreted the word "blaming" as alleging a habit of blaming other people, and I'm sure many readers would have read it that way.

David clarified to me that it refers to blaming external circumstances (as an opposite to a world view in which one's own actions determine everything that occurs).

I still believe that (i) David does not know enough about all members of the Exec to hold an informed opinion that any of the above claims apply to all members (ii) for those for whom he does know enough to have a view, that one is at best an oversimplification. But while I still think he's incorrect and that the comment was a slack generalisation I'm no longer personally offended.

I do believe that it is better to find a satisfactory medium between explaining events in terms of one's own efforts and explaining events in terms of unexpected external factors, than to attempt to avoid what David calls "blaming" absolutely.

The reason for this is that the opposite to "blaming" is actually just another form of blaming in which every time something you could in theory have forseen goes wrong you blame not external factors but yourself. And I have enough tendencies in that direction already without wishing to overextend the practice or impose it on the ACF.

I also think that the terms "controlling" and "blaming" as used by David are very close to being opposites of each other. "Controlling" is attempting to ensure that you direct circumstances and are accountable and responsible for them, and avoid just letting things go and then "blaming" external factors.

Libby2
28-03-2011, 06:49 AM
I've had a re-read (3rd actually) and I still hold the same opinion (although if I add extra weight to Libby2's last sentence, I can be convinced at a pinch. With Scott and you having a different take to mine, I'm satisfied that there's sufficient reason for me to remove my lambaste. Doing so now.

Yawn. So sorry I missed it and the possibility of seeing how many undercurrents you managed to read into what (I intended) to be a comment on the perils of a committee - largely from my own experience.

Being without a clue of what you managed to read into it - all that was intended was the obsevation that it is a shame if you can't get new faces on a committee. There are occasions when the existing membership can be seen to discourage new voices, but more commonly there are rarely masses of candidates to choose from. The experience of being on a committee can be rewarding in what it allows you to achieve and deliver, but (often) equally exhausting in the level of sniping and complaining that you deal with from those in the cheap seats.

Finally, it can be very difficult, with a long-serving committee, to transition to a new leadership team if what you get is a sudden loss of a large number of people, rather than a gradual turnover occurring naturally because a wider range of people have an involvement.

Now see what you can make of that and I'll go back to remembering why I choose not to involve myself significantly anymore :wall:

After all, as someone who whinges and complains and does nothing, I am only in an 11th year of voluntarily running a club at a school my children no longer attend, running interschool events as a volunteer, running an after school program each week for ACTJCL as a volunteer, updating (with my better half) the ACTJCL website and updating all of ACTJCL's online resources. I'm completely slacking off, complaining, and contributing nothing as always.

Brian_Jones
28-03-2011, 07:48 AM
I'm completely slacking off, complaining, and contributing nothing as always.

It is always a pleasure to quote somebody out of context.

Keep up the good work Libby! ;)

Basil
28-03-2011, 08:27 AM
all that was intended was the obsevation that it is a shame if you can't get new faces on a committee. There are occasions when the existing membership can be seen to discourage new voices, but more commonly there are rarely masses of candidates to choose from. The experience of being on a committee can be rewarding in what it allows you to achieve and deliver, but (often) equally exhausting in the level of sniping and complaining that you deal with from those in the cheap seats.
Much clearer and I completely agree.

Desmond
28-03-2011, 08:56 AM
Some organisations Slashdot, Wikipedia and Red Hat for example, release their source code while others such as Google, which also provides free services, does not. True Google does provide some products for free, but sells its enterprise appliance and software range, so obviously it wouldn't give the source code away.


Note, Red Hat doesn't really provide free services as such any more, one has to pay for its products such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but all its source code can be downloaded by anyone with the inclination and bandwidth.There is a distinction to be made here between product and service. They offer their software on a subscription basis and support is optional and chargeable. Hopefully no one expects them to provide call centres full of trained staff to be a phone call away for nothing.

These business models are transperant and well understood. Can the same be said for Tornelo?

antichrist
28-03-2011, 09:21 AM
David has clarified this comment to which I initially took a moderate degree of offence.

I interpreted the word "blaming" as alleging a habit of blaming other people, and I'm sure many readers would have read it that way.

David clarified to me that it refers to blaming external circumstances (as an opposite to a world view in which one's own actions determine everything that occurs).

I still believe that (i) David does not know enough about all members of the Exec to hold an informed opinion that any of the above claims apply to all members (ii) for those for whom he does know enough to have a view, that one is at best an oversimplification. But while I still think he's incorrect and that the comment was a slack generalisation I'm no longer personally offended.

I do believe that it is better to find a satisfactory medium between explaining events in terms of one's own efforts and explaining events in terms of unexpected external factors, than to attempt to avoid what David calls "blaming" absolutely.

The reason for this is that the opposite to "blaming" is actually just another form of blaming in which every time something you could in theory have forseen goes wrong you blame not external factors but yourself. And I have enough tendencies in that direction already without wishing to overextend the practice or impose it on the ACF.

I also think that the terms "controlling" and "blaming" as used by David are very close to being opposites of each other. "Controlling" is attempting to ensure that you direct circumstances and are accountable and responsible for them, and avoid just letting things go and then "blaming" external factors.

Thanks a lot KB, you lost me about half way through. If it was a chess combo I would perserve but it ain't. Cant you just say it simply in a few straight forward sentences? For the simpletions amongst us?

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2011, 11:45 AM
Thanks a lot KB, you lost me about half way through. If it was a chess combo I would perserve but it ain't. Cant you just say it simply in a few straight forward sentences? For the simpletions amongst us?

The simpletons are not worth the bother.

ChessGuru
31-03-2011, 03:28 PM
1. Teleconference :hmm:
How much does the ACF spend on each teleconference? And how many teleconference meetings a year?

2. Is the Tornelo business model understood?
No, not even by me. Nor is this the place to discuss the Tornelo biz model.

The ACF has effectively tried to ban investigation of the product -- long before getting to the stage of examining the business model is even needed.

The ACF's behaviour is a worry - something's missing.

3.
A sticking point in this case would be that the ACF ratings calculations and data would essentially be held and conducted on the Tornelo website, a website owned by a private company.

Apart from considering the real risks (which is more likely to crash, an ACF executive's private home computer, or a dedicated server somewhere in the US with multiple redundancies) what about just asking for a "download data" button to exist on that magical day in the future rather than the actual reaction that was taken?

The point is that the composition of the ACF is a bunch of like-minded, same-thinking individuals. Most without any knowledge of things 'technical' or modern... It is a concern that they are running up massive teleconference bills (Skype is free) to have meetings that react like a volcano to the hint of a suggestion of investigation of change?

Is this the sort of team that can lead chess through the rest of this decade and emerge bigger, better, brighter, stronger?

Denis_Jessop
31-03-2011, 04:15 PM
1. Teleconference :hmm:
How much does the ACF spend on each teleconference? And how many teleconference meetings a year?

2. Is the Tornelo business model understood?
No, not even by me. Nor is this the place to discuss the Tornelo biz model.

The ACF has effectively tried to ban investigation of the product -- long before getting to the stage of examining the business model is even needed.

The ACF's behaviour is a worry - something's missing.

3.

Apart from considering the real risks (which is more likely to crash, an ACF executive's private home computer, or a dedicated server somewhere in the US with multiple redundancies) what about just asking for a "download data" button to exist on that magical day in the future rather than the actual reaction that was taken?

The point is that the composition of the ACF is a bunch of like-minded, same-thinking individuals. Most without any knowledge of things 'technical' or modern... It is a concern that they are running up massive teleconference bills (Skype is free) to have meetings that react like a volcano to the hint of a suggestion of investigation of change?

Is this the sort of team that can lead chess through the rest of this decade and emerge bigger, better, brighter, stronger?

David

There are two things that stand out in your post as quite wrong

First, I and, I believe, the ACF have no objection to the development of Tournelo or any other such system or to its trial in tournaments such as is to be conducted at the Doeberl Cup.

Secondly, how can you seriously imply that the ACF ratings officers have no effective back-up arrangements for the ACF ratings system. You seem to overlook that Bill Gletsos is an experienced IT professional who I'd suggest knows 100 times more about computers and procedures for their use than you'll ever know.

I don't mind a vigorous debate on any topic but please keep it realistic.

DJ

Garvinator
31-03-2011, 04:28 PM
David

There are two things that stand out in your post as quite wrong

First, I and, I believe, the ACF have no objection to the development of Tournelo or any other such system or to its trial in tournaments such as is to be conducted at the Doeberl Cup.

Secondly, how can you seriously imply that the ACF ratings officers have no effective back-up arrangements for the ACF ratings system. You seem to overlook that Bill Gletsos is an experienced IT professional who I'd suggest knows 100 times more about computers and procedures for their use than you'll ever know.

I don't mind a vigorous debate on any topic but please keep it realistic.

DJ
Denis, it is always much easier to just throw some mud and hope some sticks, rather than actually having to properly debate a topic.

Desmond
31-03-2011, 04:46 PM
Apart from considering the real risks (which is more likely to crash, an ACF executive's private home computer, or a dedicated server somewhere in the US with multiple redundancies) ...
If you know that it's a dedicated server, so much for it being a cloud.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2011, 07:57 PM
(Skype is free)

Gary has tried it several times without success, and several Councillors have it. In every case it worked fine while there were 3-4 online but as the number online simultaneously increased the signal quality worsened rapidly to the point of being hopeless.

Desmond
31-03-2011, 09:00 PM
Gary has tried it several times without success, and several Councillors have it. In every case it worked fine while there were 3-4 online but as the number online simultaneously increased the signal quality worsened rapidly to the point of being hopeless.
Ventrilo is pretty good and quite cheap. Have a look at http://typefrag.com/

ChessGuru
01-04-2011, 03:04 PM
Q. would it be possible for Tornelo to be released under an Open Source licence, so that those of us with programming experience could make and/or recommend improvements?

For those of you who are interested, the Tornelo pairing algorithm source code has just been released at Tornelo.com

Anyone who wants to make and/or recommend improvements please have a look over the weekend. Feedback should be as SPECIFIC as possible and emailed to cordover@chesskids.com.au

I now challenge the ACF to apply the same level of transparency to their ratings calculation methodology. :)

ChessGuru
02-04-2011, 09:54 AM
First, I and, I believe, the ACF have no objection to the development of Tournelo or any other such system or to its trial in tournaments such as is to be conducted at the Doeberl Cup.

What's the distance between "no objection" to "supportive" of change...and then how from from that to "pro-active" and from there even to "passionate about improving". Classic ACF mindset - "we have no objection to developments..." but also you're not going to actually raise a finger to instigate or support anything that might vaguely benefit chess players... after all the ACF is a National Body and should only be involved with things of National Importance such as Selecting Players, Foreign Trade and Allocating Events. You wouldn't want to stoop to anything as low as "helping players"... :wall:


Secondly, how can you seriously imply that the ACF ratings officers have no effective back-up arrangements for the ACF ratings system.
I didn't imply that...the answer to my question might well have been "no difference".... my question was in response to Kevin's statement:

A sticking point in this case would be that the ACF ratings calculations and data would essentially be held and conducted on the Tornelo website, a website owned by a private company.
Can you please elaborate on the details of this "sticking point".... and why it's so sticky now? The request for now from Tornelo was - can Tornelo run a trial alongside the ACF system? And the answer was - "no of course not, and you're now banned for even suggesting such a thing!"


You seem to overlook that Bill Gletsos is an experienced IT professional who I'd suggest knows 100 times more about computers and procedures for their use than you'll ever know.

That's like saying "he's an experienced legal professional and knows 100 times more about the law than you ever will" about a parking officer. Yes, he's a part of the legal process .... but you'd never go to him for advice about commercial litigation or an intellectual property dispute.

"IT" is a somewhat bigger field these days than what it was when you were a boy. He might be the most knowledgeable person on the ACF about "computers and procedures for their use" by 100 times or more; but that's an indictment on the ACF and not evidence of Bill's all-encompassing knowledge in the field of Information Technology.

Sure, back in the early 1500s you could be a "scientist" - but now? Back in the 1950's I'm sure you could be an "IT professional" - but now that's just a bit broad.

So, for a rare occasion I'm going to have to agree with Garvin and ask you to stop with the mud-slinging and suggest you answer some of the specific questions which have been posed....
How much does the ACF spend on each teleconference? And how many teleconference meetings a year?

MichaelBaron
02-04-2011, 10:08 AM
How much does the ACF spend on each teleconference? And how many teleconference meetings a year?
Good luck to David in obtaining answers to specific questions from ACF. Its a dragonian task. I bet instead of posting the specific amount they will come up with some answer along the lines of ''and you are bla bal bla, look at yourself bla bla'' etc :)

antichrist
02-04-2011, 10:15 AM
Now chessguru your image, for better or worse, is a bit like my own on this board. You have got the heirarchy off side. There is another option available to you. Offer the ACF partnership in the project for a few years with a sunset clause, at that poiint that have the opportunity if they wish to further the joint venture for a modest fee. They may do this they can see benefits for themselves re less work to do and better interactive technology.

You could put suitable restrictions in the agreement re copyright etc. no exchange of technology with outside parties etc. Bit then again they may find the project a turnoff.

As well just not have yourself on the board if ou knoow what I mean. Bring a partner in with you who has good standing with the ACF not Matt or Alex.

If you are going to tackle them head on it could take years and may not succeed anyway.

BTW I loved all your analogies, u were privileged that they stayed up.

Garvinator
02-04-2011, 10:34 AM
So, for a rare occasion I'm going to have to agree with Garvin and ask you to stop with the mud-slinging and suggest you answer some of the specific questions which have been posed....I was taking a direct shot at you, not anybody else. So why dont you take your own advice in this quote and answer the direct questions asked of you.

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2011, 10:53 AM
And how many teleconference meetings a year?

Three and a half.

MichaelBaron
02-04-2011, 12:40 PM
So how much money was actually spent on these conferences? Is it possible to get an exact amount? On the ACF website I could not find the annual budget, expenses etc.

ER
02-04-2011, 01:19 PM
Teleconference Call Costs There are no set up fees or ongoing charges and you only pay for what you use. The charge is calculated per line per second, so the more lines in the meeting and the longer it lasts, the more the conference call will cost. You will only pay for what you use and there is no flag fall or setup cost.

Example: 60 minutes X 8 lines = $38.40 (Ex-GST)The above is just a token example ... TELSTRA charges higher than that, however, there are companies which charge much less! (than TELSTRA that is)

antichrist
02-04-2011, 01:38 PM
Three and a half.

why cant these meetings be conducted via a website over a few weeks for example so there can be plenty consideration of issues. wont cost any money and no pressure to make quick decisions. Of course urgent decisions could be treated urgently.

And lo and behold, non urgent decisions could even be canvassed on this forum under set guidelines.

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2011, 02:22 PM
why cant these meetings be conducted via a website over a few weeks for example so there can be plenty consideration of issues.

Actually a fair amount of ACF business between meetings is conducted online, either at Exec or full Council level. Email has issues though for group decision making. It's great if you have a consensus idea, or an idea that becomes a consensus idea with trivial amendments. But if there is not consensus, and someone wants to move an amendment that not everyone is happy with, it ends up being enormously time-consuming - and being so at times that might not be suitable for everyone.

Thanks Boris for the suggestion re Ventrilo - I'll pass that on. From our Skype trial experience what we ideally want is a solution where the more tech-savvy are online via VOIP or whatever but people can still call in via telephone if they want to.

Desmond
02-04-2011, 04:02 PM
That's like saying "he's an experienced legal professional and knows 100 times more about the law than you ever will" about a parking officer. Yes, he's a part of the legal process .... but you'd never go to him for advice about commercial litigation or an intellectual property dispute.

"IT" is a somewhat bigger field these days than what it was when you were a boy. He might be the most knowledgeable person on the ACF about "computers and procedures for their use" by 100 times or more; but that's an indictment on the ACF and not evidence of Bill's all-encompassing knowledge in the field of Information Technology.

Sure, back in the early 1500s you could be a "scientist" - but now? Back in the 1950's I'm sure you could be an "IT professional" - but now that's just a bit broad.I don't think the term is too broad at all. Many times explaining what you do in IT is just met by eyes glazing over so after a while you just say "I'm in IT".

Also you use various IT buzzwords in such a way as to demonstrate that you don't know what they mean. Straight out of the school of: if you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.

I have 0 doubt that Bill IT knowledge is orders of magnitude above your own. 100 times is probably flattering you.

Desmond
02-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Thanks Boris for the suggestion re Ventrilo - I'll pass that on. From our Skype trial experience what we ideally want is a solution where the more tech-savvy are online via VOIP or whatever but people can still call in via telephone if they want to.Yes fair point, it is a downside. Anyway I have access to a server if you want to trial it, it's licensed for 10 people from memory.

MichaelBaron
02-04-2011, 06:13 PM
Its funny that Jak is the only one who tried to answer the question about the cost...ACF is suddenly not vocal at all :)

Denis_Jessop
02-04-2011, 07:33 PM
Its funny that Jak is the only one who tried to answer the question about the cost...ACF is suddenly not vocal at all :)

And, as usual, Michael Baron is nothing but vocal :D

What is all the to do about costs of teleconferences got to do with this thread or anything else for that matter.

Teleconferences were introduced by Graeme Gardiner, then ACF President, ten years ago as an improvement on the existing system of Council meetings attended by State delegates in person who had little interest in, and usually no instructions from, the State Association they represented. To return to that arrangement would be a disaster.

Everyone knows that teleconferences are expensive. It is dumb to suggest or think that the ACF has not sought, or used, alternatives.

But, as usual, all we get from the gypsy is implied or actual criticism and no substance.

DJ

ChessGuru
02-04-2011, 07:50 PM
Teleconferences were introduced by Graeme Gardiner, then ACF President, ten years ago as an improvement on the existing system of Council meetings
Only 10 years ago? Then you definately shouldn't even consider anything different for another 10...it's practically modern!


To return to that arrangement would be a disaster.
And there are clearly no other alternatives.

Another classic ACF Way of Thinking revealed = Do what we do now; or do what we did before. :doh:


Everyone knows that teleconferences are expensive. It is dumb to suggest or think that the ACF has not sought, or used, alternatives.
Yep, common knowledge. The fact that you've not been able to find free or low cost viable alternatives is no reflection on the ACF at all. You've done your best. And clearly I can assume that what gets accomplished in those meetings is WELL WORTH the money spent.

They way you're hiding the details I wonder, are they more expensive than Jetstar flights? Say $60-$80 per person per meeting?

Denis_Jessop
02-04-2011, 08:01 PM
What's the distance between "no objection" to "supportive" of change...and then how from from that to "pro-active" and from there even to "passionate about improving". Classic ACF mindset - "we have no objection to developments..." but also you're not going to actually raise a finger to instigate or support anything that might vaguely benefit chess players... after all the ACF is a National Body and should only be involved with things of National Importance such as Selecting Players, Foreign Trade and Allocating Events. You wouldn't want to stoop to anything as low as "helping players"... :wall:


I didn't imply that...the answer to my question might well have been "no difference".... my question was in response to Kevin's statement:

Can you please elaborate on the details of this "sticking point".... and why it's so sticky now? The request for now from Tornelo was - can Tornelo run a trial alongside the ACF system? And the answer was - "no of course not, and you're now banned for even suggesting such a thing!"



That's like saying "he's an experienced legal professional and knows 100 times more about the law than you ever will" about a parking officer. Yes, he's a part of the legal process .... but you'd never go to him for advice about commercial litigation or an intellectual property dispute.

"IT" is a somewhat bigger field these days than what it was when you were a boy. He might be the most knowledgeable person on the ACF about "computers and procedures for their use" by 100 times or more; but that's an indictment on the ACF and not evidence of Bill's all-encompassing knowledge in the field of Information Technology.

Sure, back in the early 1500s you could be a "scientist" - but now? Back in the 1950's I'm sure you could be an "IT professional" - but now that's just a bit broad.

So, for a rare occasion I'm going to have to agree with Garvin and ask you to stop with the mud-slinging and suggest you answer some of the specific questions which have been posed....
How much does the ACF spend on each teleconference? And how many teleconference meetings a year?

I take some exception ti the suggestion that my post was "mud slinging" but Boris has effectively answered that. I fear that false preciousness has overtaken our David in the face of the facts.

I was overwhelmed by the first paragraph, however. Suddenly the man whose only interest is the "big picture" delves into details and subtle semantics with the occasional management cliché (pro-active) thrown in. How can this be? Is our David trying to establish his credentials for a place on the ACF Executive after so many years of ACF-bashing? :hmm:

Now, about this Tournelo thing. Apparently it consists of two possibly discrete parts. The first is a re-presentation of ACF ratings in pretty colours with lots of graphs and arrows and the agonising information that after each game your rating has dropped a point. The second part is a Swiss pairing program.

My view, not necessarily the ACF's view, is that the first part is eyewash and of no substance. if someone wants to produce it, OK, but the ACF should not give it priority. The second part has potential as the ACF now prescribes Swiss Perfect. We know that SP is not P and a pairing program that properly, fully, applied the FIDE Swiss Rules Dutch System may well be welcomed by the ACF. But to all accounts, the pairing aspect of Tournelo is now so far from there that it is really not worth while.

How, and why, do you think the ACF should support the Tournelo Dog's Breakfast Pairing System?

DJ

Denis_Jessop
02-04-2011, 08:23 PM
Only 10 years ago? Then you definately shouldn't even consider anything different for another 10...it's practically modern!


And there are clearly no other alternatives.

Another classic ACF Way of Thinking revealed = Do what we do now; or do what we did before. :doh:


Yep, common knowledge. The fact that you've not been able to find free or low cost viable alternatives is no reflection on the ACF at all. You've done your best. And clearly I can assume that what gets accomplished in those meetings is WELL WORTH the money spent.

They way you're hiding the details I wonder, are they more expensive than Jetstar flights? Say $60-$80 per person per meeting?

David I fear you are losing your grip a bit. The arguments in your post are sarcastic but all over the place to the extent that you criticise the ACF for something that is answered by the next bit of my post that you quote.

Your suggestion about Jetstar is a good example of how you do not think things through and why you often fail (don't mention Mt Buller folks). State delegates most of whom are employed, if attending an in person Council meeting, would have to take time off work and probably spend at least one night's accommodation wherever the meeting was held. Let's assume the meeting was in Melbourne (Victorians would assume that as divine right :) ). That means 11 of 13 Councillors would travel. If their Jetstar air fare were $70 we have $770 dollars to start with. To this add fares from the airport to the city and return (say $20) - another $220. Add overnight accommodation, say $120, making another $1320. Add 3 meals, say $40 making $440. Total $2750. That is about 3 times or more the cost of a teleconference.

QED

DJ

Ian Murray
02-04-2011, 09:21 PM
...Your suggestion about Jetstar is a good example of how you do not think things through ...If their Jetstar air fare were $70 we have $770 dollars to start with....DJ
Jetstar advertised fares are one-way - factor in another $770 to get home

MichaelBaron
02-04-2011, 09:53 PM
David I fear you are losing your grip a bit. The arguments in your post are sarcastic but all over the place to the extent that you criticise the ACF for something that is answered by the next bit of my post that you quote.

Your suggestion about Jetstar is a good example of how you do not think things through and why you often fail (don't mention Mt Buller folks). State delegates most of whom are employed, if attending an in person Council meeting, would have to take time off work and probably spend at least one night's accommodation wherever the meeting was held. Let's assume the meeting was in Melbourne (Victorians would assume that as divine right :) ). That means 11 of 13 Councillors would travel. If their Jetstar air fare were $70 we have $770 dollars to start with. To this add fares from the airport to the city and return (say $20) - another $220. Add overnight accommodation, say $120, making another $1320. Add 3 meals, say $40 making $440. Total $2750. That is about 3 times or more the cost of a teleconference.

QED

DJ

So, since ACF avoided answering the question about the costs directly. Shall we assume that the costs are 1/3 of the travel expensives discussed above?:doh:

Let me ask once again. What is the cost of the ACF teleconferences for the year 2010? Does anyone know the answer?

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2011, 10:31 PM
Does anyone know the answer?

If you don't get an answer you shouldn't assume that we don't. :lol:

MichaelBaron
02-04-2011, 11:26 PM
If you don't get an answer you shouldn't assume that we don't. :lol:
I am to scared to think it was the answer...because in this case - what a waste of money!

ER
02-04-2011, 11:27 PM
Jetstar advertised fares are one-way - factor in another $770 to get home
How 'd ya know Denis wasn't planning to move permanently to Sydney??? :P

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2011, 11:32 PM
I am to scared to think it was the answer...because in this case - what a waste of money!

Never mind what it costs. Since you maintain it is a waste of money tell me your alternative. You might know something we don't. More likely we can tell you why it wouldn't work.

Garvinator
02-04-2011, 11:44 PM
Yes fair point, it is a downside. Anyway I have access to a server if you want to trial it, it's licensed for 10 people from memory.
It would need to have access for 15 people. The 13 councillors plus room for a couple of invited speakers.

MichaelBaron
03-04-2011, 12:23 AM
any Voice Messenger :) it is totally free!

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 01:08 AM
any Voice Messenger :) it is totally free!

What exactly are you talking about here? As I understand it voice messenger services are used to transmit recorded messages from one person to another (or to several others), not to have extended real-time conversations. How would you hold a substantial meeting using such a system?

ER
03-04-2011, 01:12 AM
any Voice Messenger :) it is totally free!

LOL that's what suggested to me by a friend 10 minutes ago! She and her friends have voice conferences through messenger! :clap:
She actually, is demonstrating it to me in the other computer right now! :lol:


What exactly are you talking about here? As I understand it voice messenger services are used to transmit recorded messages from one person to another (or to several others), not to have extended real-time conversations. How would you hold a substantial meeting using such a system?

Kev it's true Ekaterina and her friends can really talk, I mean really! For hours! :rolleyes: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 01:22 AM
Kev it's true Ekaterina and her friends can really talk, I mean really! For hours! :rolleyes: :lol:

Perhaps David should recruit them for his ACF Exec ticket then!

What technology does everyone need to have to participate and is it really "free"? And is it just the same as a phone hookup or different?

antichrist
03-04-2011, 01:30 AM
Never mind what it costs. Since you maintain it is a waste of money tell me your alternative. You might know something we don't. More likely we can tell you why it wouldn't work.

I am sure it would not effect national security for the treasurer or yourelf to disclose the amount. I agree with whoever that it should be achieved for free, just have your exclusive area on ACF website like a thread here. As this site shows deles would have more enuf opportunities to express their views. If the older guys are not computer savy which I doubt they could be taught easier enuf.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 01:35 AM
I am sure it would not effect national security for the treasurer or yourelf to disclose the amount.

I've got no problems with the treasurer disclosing it if he wants to - he doesn't post here.


I agree with whoever that it should be achieved for free, just have your exclusive area on ACF website like a thread here.

Doing everything by typing is a silly idea and won't even be considered.

I am keen to find a way around phone hookups personally - they are a cost it would be good to avoid and the quality of the line is sometimes a problem. But it has to be practical and it has to be something everyone can join in on even if they are not all that tech-savvy.

I personally know very little about the more advanced mobile phone options - I keep mine very simple mainly for cost reasons.

antichrist
03-04-2011, 01:41 AM
Actually a fair amount of ACF business between meetings is conducted online, either at Exec or full Council level. Email has issues though for group decision making. It's great if you have a consensus idea, or an idea that becomes a consensus idea with trivial amendments. But if there is not consensus, and someone wants to move an amendment that not everyone is happy with, it ends up being enormously time-consuming - and being so at times that might not be suitable for everyone.

.

Not via email but a forum like this one where everyone can see everyone else's views. Have a set weekly time as u would need for your tele-conferencing anyway. About half the delegates already post here anyway.

But a set time is not even necessary, as long as delegates repond within a set timeframe. I cant imagine too many rushed decisions being necessary, that nonrating issue with Shirty was actually not urgent if Shirty had been more careful with his words.

ER
03-04-2011, 01:47 AM
OK Kevin I just witnessed how it's done.
The following is what I was told and partly witnessed.

You need an internet connection, a pair of headphones with a mic attached.
You open an account to any Messenger, say Yahoo.

You and the other meeting participants predecide to meet in a Messenger room, say Community Affairs, or Wine testing etc.

Once all present, one clicks on a button which says Invite to conference.

He/she then invites each and every other participant by just clicking on their name and click invite.

Then you start talking as in a real conference / meeting situation. I just saw it happening. Actually I have participated in countless video / tele conferences at work.

Ekaterina and her friends (some of which also use cameras so they can see eachother while conversing) have no more problems than the professionally arranged types of conference!

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 02:07 AM
You need an internet connection, a pair of headphones with a mic attached.
You open an account to any Messenger, say Yahoo.

You and the other meeting participants predecide to meet in a Messenger room, say Community Affairs, or Wine testing etc.

OK, so everybody needs to be able to access a net connection which presumably needs to work at a fast enough speed to converse over. I'd hope that wouldn't be too hard, but we will see ... thanks for the info.

Desmond
03-04-2011, 06:37 AM
It would need to have access for 15 people. The 13 councillors plus room for a couple of invited speakers.
Not for a trial to demonstrate that it can handle more than 3-4 like Skype it wouldn't

Spiny Norman
03-04-2011, 07:35 AM
For those of you who are interested, the Tornelo pairing algorithm source code has just been released at Tornelo.com
I think that's a great development David ... you'll no doubt get some robust feedback/criticism, but we all need that sort of detailed critique in order to improve thiings.

MichaelBaron
03-04-2011, 08:56 AM
What exactly are you talking about here? As I understand it voice messenger services are used to transmit recorded messages from one person to another (or to several others), not to have extended real-time conversations. How would you hold a substantial meeting using such a system?

LOL of course its LIVE. I am talking about Messenger Software, In fact I believe even MSN Messenger has this option.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 09:51 AM
LOL of course its LIVE. I am talking about Messenger Software, In fact I believe even MSN Messenger has this option.

Actually I recall using MSN Messenger for live two-person chat about four years ago and finding it usable but with some sound quality issues (from memory it sounded rather electronic and "zingy"). Perhaps it has improved since.

Watto
03-04-2011, 09:55 AM
Good luck to David in obtaining answers to specific questions from ACF. Its a dragonian task.
A task for a dragon you think? hehe Have to laugh, sorry, that's just too good a misspelling.

MichaelBaron
03-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Actually I recall using MSN Messenger for live two-person chat about four years ago and finding it usable but with some sound quality issues (from memory it sounded rather electronic and "zingy"). Perhaps it has improved since.
I have not been experiencing any quality issues, not in the last 5 odd years anyway :). May be you/person you were chatting to had some problem with the mic or sound card.

I have not tested GoogleTalk myself but apparently its even better than MSN

ER
03-04-2011, 12:25 PM
A task for a dragon you think? hehe Have to laugh, sorry, that's just too good a misspelling.

LOL Michael introduced his own version of the Dragon (ian) Defence in his effort to assist David! :lol: BTW Draco (n) in classical (as well as in modern) Hellenic, apart from being the name of the ancient dictator, means just that! (Dragon)! :lol:

Denis_Jessop
03-04-2011, 02:19 PM
How 'd ya know Denis wasn't planning to move permanently to Sydney??? :P

Sydney's a very nice place - I was born there and my sister lives there. But I am a very long-standing Canberran. Besides, the cycling conditions are great here :) even if the chess scene is not so healthy. :(

DJ

Denis_Jessop
03-04-2011, 02:25 PM
LOL Michael introduced his own version of the Dragon (ian) Defence in his effort to assist David! :lol: BTW Draco (n) in classical (as well as in modern) Hellenic, apart from being the name of the ancient dictator, means just that! (Dragon)! :lol:

Or, as a variation, a dragonian task is one undertaken by the Sicilian mafia :hmm:

DJ

Denis_Jessop
03-04-2011, 02:37 PM
Not via email but a forum like this one where everyone can see everyone else's views. Have a set weekly time as u would need for your tele-conferencing anyway. About half the delegates already post here anyway.

But a set time is not even necessary, as long as delegates repond within a set timeframe. I cant imagine too many rushed decisions being necessary, that nonrating issue with Shirty was actually not urgent if Shirty had been more careful with his words.

In fact, quite some years ago (2004) it was agreed to establish a vBulletin forum for the exchange of views among ACF Councillors and office bearers and I believe it was established. But it never was used as far as I know. E-mail to multiple recipients is a similar set-up. But past experience has shown a disinclination to engage in any debate in depth on a relevant topic even one as significant as Graeme Gardiner's structural reform proposal around 2000. BTW, that disinclination is not confined to ACF officers. Recently things have improved a little.

Urgent matters are now dealt with quite satisfactorily by e-mail including e-mail motions if necessary.

DJ

Watto
03-04-2011, 04:26 PM
LOL Michael introduced his own version of the Dragon (ian) Defence in his effort to assist David! :lol: BTW Draco (n) in classical (as well as in modern) Hellenic, apart from being the name of the ancient dictator, means just that! (Dragon)! :lol:
If I'd taken my NZT-48, I'd have remembered that, lol
Maybe that's why Michael made the error rather than it being a case of mishearing the word? Anyway, I think I might have to start using dragonian, it's so good!

ER
03-04-2011, 04:33 PM
If I'd taken my NZT-48, I'd have remembered that, lol
Have you seen the film? I was listening to a discussion / critique on radio the other night!


Maybe that's why Michael made the error ....
Michael??? Error??? :doh: I thought :hmm: he has never erred in his life! :P

Watto
03-04-2011, 04:49 PM
Have you seen the film? I was listening to a discussion / critique on radio the other night!

It was interesting ... I enjoyed it thoroughly even though it had some weak moments. I thought Bradley Cooper was excellent. I loved his transition - I won't say anymore so as not to spoil things.

Adamski
03-04-2011, 11:32 PM
I was not going to end my self imposed exile until tommorrow but was catching up on here after not being here, except for looking up one thing, for the week. I am just disappointed at the attitude of some people.
As far as I am concerned as a person who is primarily interested in juniors chess and on the AusJCL committee, although not the executive, the ACF has done won huge, massive, gigantic thing in the last few years. That is the creating of the AusJCL, a body specifically for the running of junior chess. This allowed there to be a total revamp of the Australian Juniors format which contributed to the great success of the 2011 Australian Juniors in Melbourne.
I also think the appointment of Brian Jones as Grand Prix Coordinator was an excellent move which has lead to Grand Prix to be in much better shape than it had been in the years leading up to that appointment.
Ian Murray's appointment as Olympiad Appeal coordinator was also an excellent appointment as he did an excellent job
The ACF also runs the ratings system, selections, awarding of tournaments, interactions with FIDE about ratings and titles and many other things.
I am not a fan of every decision the ACF makes but I think the total dismissal of them as a body is totally unfair and they get alot of things right.
See you tommorrow.
Scott
Good post Scott. I fully agree about AusJCL. ACF has actually achieved a lot for Aus chess.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2011, 11:40 PM
Posts moved

Discussion of youngest ACF officebearers and formation of ACF moved to Australian Chess History section.

MichaelBaron
04-04-2011, 02:52 AM
Michael??? Error??? :doh: I thought :hmm: he has never erred in his life! :P
Making errors is part of the learning process! Only those who error have a chance to (eventually) improve. Only those who question may get answers.

The correction noted so thank you..cause i do learn from my mistakes :). In the famous chinese fairy-tale "Journey to the West'' (arguably, on of the 4 greatest works of the Chinese literature)Two of the main characters are: The Monkey and The Pig. They both have their weaknesses, faults and shortcomings ..and commit several errors. But the difference between the two is that The Monkey is always having strength and analytical ability to learn from his mistakes. And The Pig...is always going to be the Pig :) ... so I would rather be like the Monkey!

ER
04-04-2011, 04:03 AM
Making errors is part of the learning process! Only those who error have a chance to (eventually) improve. Only those who question may get answers.

The correction noted so thank you..cause i do learn from my mistakes :). In the famous chinese fairy-tale "Journey to the West'' (arguably, on of the 4 greatest works of the Chinese literature)Two of the main characters are: The Monkey and The Pig. They both have their weaknesses, faults and shortcomings ..and commit several errors. But the difference between the two is that The Monkey is always having strength and analytical ability to learn from his mistakes. And The Pig...is always going to be the Pig :) ... so I would rather be like the Monkey!

LOL Unfair, because, if I remember correctly, the Monkey was already the King so he could afford to make mistakes! :lol:
I will read the epic again after I finish "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold"! :)
Oops sorry, It's Patrick White's "The Tree Of Man" that has priority! BTW I have already finished Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet On THe Western Front", Ben Elton's "Popcorn"and Gerald McKnight's "Woody Allen - Joking Aside", since the beginning of the year! :)

MichaelBaron
04-04-2011, 09:37 AM
LOL Unfair, because, if I remember correctly, the Monkey was already the King so he could afford to make mistakes! :lol:
I will read the epic again after I finish "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold"! :)
Oops sorry, It's Patrick White's "The Tree Of Man" that has priority! BTW I have already finished Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet On THe Western Front", Ben Elton's "Popcorn"and Gerald McKnight's "Woody Allen - Joking Aside", since the beginning of the year! :)
JAK, the Monkey was travelling to the West not in his Royal capacity but as a humble companion to the Monk.

Good on you to finish the Remarque's book! I too enjoyed it :).

Grant Szuveges
05-04-2011, 07:04 PM
Im not really sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but Im not sure where else to put it...

The ACF should be running some blitz marathons! These would be great! Maybe even a grand prix of them accross Australia...

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet (as the person who thought them up), these tournaments are really good fun and I think that they will grow. MCC has run 3 now and we have our 4th one this Sunday. There is also talk of Garvin Gray holding one in Brisbane. Another chess official suggested to me the idea of running one in a public place too.

They are a hard, tough event for serious tournament and blitz players but they are also handy in that they only take a days committment from the players (rather than 2-3 days for weekenders and 9-11 days for national championships etc). In the hectic world of 2011 with its supermarket of entertainment options, these would be a good way of advertising chess and presenting it to the general public.

antichrist
05-04-2011, 07:18 PM
Im not really sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but Im not sure where else to put it...

The ACF should be running some blitz marathons! These would be great! Maybe even a grand prix of them accross Australia...

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet (as the person who thought them up), these tournaments are really good fun and I think that they will grow. MCC has run 3 now and we have our 4th one this Sunday. There is also talk of Garvin Gray holding one in Brisbane. Another chess official suggested to me the idea of running one in a public place too.

They are a hard, tough event for serious tournament and blitz players but they are also handy in that they only take a days committment from the players (rather than 2-3 days for weekenders and 9-11 days for national championships etc). In the hectic world of 2011 with its supermarket of entertainment options, these would be a good way of advertising chess and presenting it to the general public.

to make them more exciting esp to spectators take the increment out of them, so that spectators can easily see the countdown with expectation and excitement, also use old analogue clocks with flags, those electornic at certain angles you cant read the time so lose the momentum for spectators

Desmond
05-04-2011, 08:11 PM
Another chess official suggested to me the idea of running one [blitz marathon] in a public place too.How about...

a marathon in a shopping centre, to coincide with pre-xmas around the clock shopping!

hard core!

Denis_Jessop
05-04-2011, 08:21 PM
Im not really sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but Im not sure where else to put it...

The ACF should be running some blitz marathons! These would be great! Maybe even a grand prix of them accross Australia...

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet (as the person who thought them up), these tournaments are really good fun and I think that they will grow. MCC has run 3 now and we have our 4th one this Sunday. There is also talk of Garvin Gray holding one in Brisbane. Another chess official suggested to me the idea of running one in a public place too.

They are a hard, tough event for serious tournament and blitz players but they are also handy in that they only take a days committment from the players (rather than 2-3 days for weekenders and 9-11 days for national championships etc). In the hectic world of 2011 with its supermarket of entertainment options, these would be a good way of advertising chess and presenting it to the general public.

Some years ago Ralph Jackson had an even more interesting idea of running an inland walking type tour by day with blitz tournaments at night. He mentioned it to me but I don't know what became of the idea. It sounded like the anti-supermarket option.

DJ

MichaelBaron
06-04-2011, 10:33 AM
Some years ago Ralph Jackson had an even more interesting idea of running an inland walking type tour by day with blitz tournaments at night. He mentioned it to me but I don't know what became of the idea. It sounded like the anti-supermarket option.

DJ

Good idea!

antichrist
06-04-2011, 10:52 AM
Some years ago Ralph Jackson had an even more interesting idea of running an inland walking type tour by day with blitz tournaments at night. He mentioned it to me but I don't know what became of the idea. It sounded like the anti-supermarket option.

DJ

Did he envisage them walking backwards as well?