PDA

View Full Version : ACF Exec roles, Tornelo response etc sf On The Move



george
01-06-2011, 12:38 AM
Hi All,
During the "commission"discussion I was a Councillor and was against the structure based mainly on the loss of power for the smaller states.
At the crucial second vote after much discussion from Graeme and all ACF Councillors if memory serves me correctly SA votes came around to being in favour of the commission.
During that same meeting I became formally President of ACF and at the Council meeting held on the afternoon of the Conference Bill Gletsos the NSWCA rep was asked to come up with a model they would be happy with as NSWCA had sufficient numbers in there own right to block the constitutional change. The current model was promoted by NSWCA at the next conference after due notice of constitutional amendments and it was duly passed by conference.

It was a matter of being real about the politics and achieving as much change as could legally proceed. I think NSWCA came up with a reasonable compromise - whether it was good enough to achieve the changes some folks wanted its up to others to judge - I've been away from ACF Council for a couple of years so am not in a position to comment on whether it is working "better" or "worse".

If my memory of events is hazy or incorrect I'm sure Kevin or Bill will correct me with which I have NO problem.

Brian_Jones
01-06-2011, 10:00 AM
To me all this commission business is ancient history. We cannot turn back the clock! ;)

The real questions today are:

(1) What is wrong with the ACF now?

(2) What can be done to improve things?

(3) Why can't the ACF attract an active webmaster?

Maybe we need a new thread to discuss these questions for 2011 onwards.

jammo
01-06-2011, 08:18 PM
That is discussed on the other thread I posted a link to (along with various other issues). Actually some aspects of the website that were out of date were recently updated after I sent through some updates. I agree it needs a lot more work and ideally a complete overhaul and modernisation of look. At present the main issue is staffing - the webmaster was carrying on in a caretaker capacity until we found a replacement, but despite some attempts no replacement has yet been found.

Hello Again,

Yes, that is what I thought your reply would be.

I'd like to say a few words about leadership (in the context of the ACF).
Leaders tend to think in terms of the big picture. What are their goals and how do they achieve them?

Now lets look at how the ACF handles issues that come along.

Some bloke invents a chess programme that takes entries, does pairings and ratings and publishes games on-line. We don't like the bloke much and he has put a link to the ACF Ratings on his website without asking our permission. What should be the response of the ACF?

1. "Oh my God, he has an illegal link to us on his website. Quick, let's, ban him, his software, his business, etc. His pairings programme needs improving. Better make sure that no-one uses it for our events."
or
2. "Wow, this could be something really good for Australian tournament organisers and players that will make events easier to run and more fun for the players." We tell him that his pairings needs to be improved but we support the concept of what his software is trying to do. How can we help?

Web site.
1. The ACF has a pathetic website so what is the response of senior ACF officials? "It's not my job. The ACF Webmaster does the website and the position is vacant. Sorry, there is nothing that can be done. Would you perhaps like to be webmaster?"
or
2. We need a better website. I know nothing about websites so what can I do? Find someone who does and seek their advice. Chess Kids for instance has a good site. I'll ask Cordover what I should do. He suggests "Weebly.com" and shows me a site he has constructed using Weebly in a couple of hours. I either have a go myself, or find someone to help now that I know what needs to be done. If all else fails I pay an IT person who does that sort of thing to set up our site. The main thing is that I get the job done.

Personally I'd rather have an ACF that thinks along the lines of no.2 but we have one that is stuck at no.1. I've seen how our dear leader operates and I'm afraid the focus is on processes rather than outcomes. He's an agreeable bloke who works hard and is an absolutely brilliant Secretary. An inspirational leader? Unfortunately not. One thing however is certain, I wish him a long reign as President if the only alternative is his current Deputy.

Anyway, that's enough of a rant for this evening. I have to go now. Neale Fraser wants a website for The Australian Davis Cup Tennis Foundation and I promised him that I'd have it finished this week.

Best Wishes,
Jammo

ChessGuru
01-06-2011, 10:27 PM
An unsound assumption when considering multi-functional programs that work well in some ways and badly in others. Especially unsound if there is sponsorship involved.

Surely if there is sponsorship involved that is even more of a reason for the ACF to look a bit more kindly on Tornelo? After all, chess doesn't exactly have many sponsors throwing money around.... and if (as you say) some parts work quite well, then why throw out the baby with the bathwater by banning the whole thing over a few wrong pairings...(which I think are fixed now...anyone with Swiss Manager who wants to do a test for me please let me know).

I've actually been thinking a bit about why the Administrators in this country are so anti-Chess Guru. A lot of times when I ask is comes down to 'commercial interest' ... but here is the interesting thing....

None of my many businesses have ever charged the ACF, CV or Clubs any money for anything (other than the sale of a few chess sets at prices way below what we sell to the general public).... in fact we keep putting money INTO mainstream chess (and players of course) and doing plenty of things for free. So why the fear of "commercial interest"??

Most chess administrators on the other hand are paid!! Token amounts I'll admit, but just think about it.... Arbiters; paid. Webmasters; honorariums and expense reimbursements. "Organisers" (in Victoria anyway)...paid. Ratings officers?? Who knows - maybe it's just a free computer every year or two. Is the fear of losing the "expense claim" enough create fear of business?

Could it be that the reality is that administrators don't want to the culture of "do nothing unless you're paid" to change? Honestly it's one of the strangest volunteer organisations around...everyone is paid (pathetically small amounts). Players even, won't play tournaments without cash prizes. IM's won't pay entry fees...

Yet when you step back the amounts they are getting are pretty insignificant...are we really all such misers?

If someone like me were to get involved in administration I'd never expect to be paid $20 to be an arbiter for a night...and I'd expect others to give their time freely...and yes, to cost them as well. Webmasters should cover hosting costs, internet access. Secretaries should pay for the postage and phone calls...

Maybe if we found some executive members who were more generous, or financially capable of being generous with their time/money?

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2011, 10:31 PM
1. "Oh my God, he has an illegal link to us on his website. Quick, let's, ban him, his software, his business, etc. His pairings programme needs improving. Better make sure that no-one uses it for our events."
or
2. "Wow, this could be something really good for Australian tournament organisers and players that will make events easier to run and more fun for the players." We tell him that his pairings needs to be improved but we support the concept of what his software is trying to do. How can we help?

You are caricaturing the ACF response as 1 in contrast to 2 but the background sheds a different light on that.

In my view (and I didn't vote on these matters because of COI) David pretty much forced the ACF's response by:

* Leaving misleading links up on a site being used to promote a major weekender and persistently failing to adequately correct them even when repeatedly asked to do so.

* Unleashing Tornelo as a pairings engine in a major weekender when it was not even remotely up to scratch for that task. That would be fine if he was clearly willing to fix it for future tournaments but his response to problems it had at Bendigo was along the lines that it didn't really matter if Tornelo didn't do proper Dutch pairings so long as it was supposedly somewhere in the ballpark of the supposed basic aims of the Swiss system (which as it turned out it wasn't anyway). There was a clear risk he would try to run more tournaments with it as a pairing engine before it was ready.

The newsletter ban may have seemed a heavy-handed response to intransigence (or just failure to perceive the problem) over the misleading links, but it worked. It was increasingly doubtful that anything else would have done so.

For your information, I actually provided many hours of unpaid advice to David in the form of pairings testing, explanation and so on after the Bendigo event, so I feel that I've ticked quite a lot of your box 2 myself. I have worked with the package myself and think it has a great deal of potential. But cooperation between David and the ACF is always going to be a tricky area in view of a history of bad blood and it has to be understood that there are valid reasons why some ACF people don't trust David's motives.

As for your website spray, the problem there is that you asked completely the wrong question for the box you are trying to put my response in. You asked me for an explanation of the reason for the current circumstances, and I gave it.

You did not ask me what I thought should be done about it, what I was thinking about it (if anything), or what I was going to do about it. You really don't know anything about those matters but thought it was OK to dish out a caricature based on my response as if you did.


One thing however is certain, I wish him a long reign as President if the only alternative is his current Deputy.

And who would that be then? I ask that because in one of your recent On The Move pieces you incorrectly said that I was the Deputy President.

antichrist
01-06-2011, 10:32 PM
I reakon those video hook up conferences were a bit over the top expense-wise

Denis_Jessop
01-06-2011, 10:33 PM
To me all this commission business is ancient history. We cannot turn back the clock! ;)

The real questions today are:

(1) What is wrong with the ACF now?

(2) What can be done to improve things?

(3) Why can't the ACF attract an active webmaster?

Maybe we need a new thread to discuss these questions for 2011 onwards.

Point 3 seems perhaps to be something that Jammo can answer in light of the final sentence of his most recent post. :)

Points 1 and 2 would need not a thread but a separate forum or sub forum. They raise too many complex issues of different kinds to be contained in one thread. I don't propose to go further into this matter at this stage except to remark that the Commission proposal may be history - a point that I do not concede if that means irrevocably dead - but the reason it is history is essential to resolution of points 1 and 2 that you have put. Thus though historical it is far from irrelevant.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
01-06-2011, 10:35 PM
I reakon those video hook up conferences were a bit over the top expense-wise

There were no video hook-up conferences.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2011, 11:26 PM
Surely if there is sponsorship involved that is even more of a reason for the ACF to look a bit more kindly on Tornelo?

Not so surely. I think that a chess association asked to endorse/support a project that's not ready for public consumption just because this results in more prizemoney for the players can be making some quite ugly compromises and shooting itself in the foot. People can remember the bad outcomes from such decisions long after they've spent the good ones.


and if (as you say) some parts work quite well, then why throw out the baby with the bathwater by banning the whole thing over a few wrong pairings...

At the time it was not just "a few wrong pairings". It was that it was getting scoregroups completely wrong, repeatedly downfloating the same players and that it wasn't even clear that you intended to fix it.


I've actually been thinking a bit about why the Administrators in this country are so anti-Chess Guru. A lot of times when I ask is comes down to 'commercial interest' ...

Nope! Brian Jones has a similar COI to you and while his relationship to the ACF isn't clean and simple it is nothing like as difficult as yours (the odd forum barney and difference of opinion concerning the pace of getting things done notwithstanding). Try again!


Most chess administrators on the other hand are paid!! Token amounts I'll admit, but just think about it.... Arbiters; paid. Webmasters; honorariums and expense reimbursements.

Expense reimbursements are pay? :eek:


Webmasters should cover hosting costs, internet access. Secretaries should pay for the postage and phone calls...

I don't agree with this at all. These people are already donating their time and many are also donating financially to chess causes as well. To require or expect them to make a net financial loss as well is verging on an insult and would discourage some skilled and able people from serving in the first place. If they choose not to claim, that should be seen as a bonus and they can be thanked.


Maybe if we found some executive members who were more generous, or financially capable of being generous with their time/money?

Ah so rich administrators just might be better than poor ones because they won't claim on expenses. Really? Never had an obviously wealthy player climb out of their deluxe Mercedes and wave a card at you to scam a $5 entry discount? Been there done that.

I really must be missing out on the great big gravy train. Not saying I've never claimed anything back, but rarely. 16 years of admin at various voluntary levels and I only accepted a modest director's fee for an Australian Junior to which I devoted a very great amount of time (needlessly extended, I add, by being caught in the vexatious crossfire between one north-islander* who didn't put the right name on his equipment and another one who used this as a pretext to abduct it). Never took an arbiter's fee from a state or club event although I have run dozens of them. Never yet claimed a postage, phone or internet reimbursement for state, club or ACF work either. Perhaps I am just unsuited to voluntary society and have been missing out all these long years.

*sob sob*

(* I am not talking New Zealand here.)

antichrist
02-06-2011, 08:10 AM
There were no video hook-up conferences.

DJ

well if they were only phone hook-up conferences that makes it worse for the amount of money spent. You could not read body language as well.

ChessGuru
02-06-2011, 10:02 AM
* Leaving misleading links up on a site being used to promote a major weekender and persistently failing to adequately correct them even when repeatedly asked to do so.

* Unleashing Tornelo as a pairings engine in a major weekender when it was not even remotely up to scratch for that task. That would be fine if he was clearly willing to fix it for future tournaments but his response to problems it had at Bendigo was along the lines that it didn't really matter if Tornelo didn't do proper Dutch pairings so long as it was supposedly somewhere in the ballpark of the supposed basic aims of the Swiss system (which as it turned out it wasn't anyway). There was a clear risk he would try to run more tournaments with it as a pairing engine before it was ready.

Misleading links I still find a weird one....after all it was displaying the ACF Ratings and I was just linking back to the ACF homepage as a courtesy. I would have been equally attacked by the ACF if I'd called them "Tornelo Ratings" because then you'd have said "Hey, they're the ACF Ratings - why are you trying to run a competing system..." There was no implication that the system was "ACF approved" (even though the whole point of Robert's argument is that you could have just said "hey, seems like a good idea, let's help in some way" and then the links would no longer have been perceived as misleading)....no rational, normal person would have been confused and somehow thought that the ACF had all of a sudden been taken over by Tornelo.... and even some bizzar person did...so what? How is the ACF being hurt?

"Unleashing" -- wow. :) The pairings at Ballarat were all calculated by SP under the watchful eye of an IA (and very experienced tournament organiser Kevin Perrin). We did try with Tornelo each round, but they were never good enough, so we manually changed them to match the SP pairings. Go ahead and re-key the Ballarat event through SP and see how you go. It was clear to everyone (except the ACF) that it was a test, trial, first go at running a tournament... the ACF had so little trust in Bekker/Perrin that they had to BAN the software (and discussion) to save the other tournaments around Australia from falling into the same trap? Really?

Quite a big risk the ACF was facing... time for some IMMEDIATE pre-emptive action. Wouldn't want Tornelo to be used at any other tournaments (with or without SP running comparisons)....

Take a look at recent Geelong...which got a few ACFers in a bit of a tizz...what's the difference if Tornelo "does" the pairings or SP "does" the pairings if after Tornelo "doing" pairings they are checked against SP. In the Aus Junior, Doeberl Cup and probably many other big events SP "Does" the pairings and then Swiss Manager "does" pairings to check the SP ones (or a manual overview). On a REGULAR basis the SP pairings are changed to match the ones generated by Swiss Manager (at least half the rounds at Doeberl).....does that mean SP should also be banned and everyone forced to use SM? Should arbiters NOT be checking pairings themselves?

Is the ACF mostly concerned about who clicks first? Would it be OK to "do" pairings in SP and then "do" them in Tornelo? What if they reach the same conclusion?

I love it how the ACF assumes just because they never heed any customer feedback that Tornelo would do the same (and use that as a justification to hobble further progress). Tornelo would just FORCE everyone to abandon the FIDE swiss method and use some bunkum "unfair" system...I guess that was my very sensible long-term plan...FORCE everyone to forget the Swiss System by paying every tournament in Australia $500 to use Tornelo and then when everyone was addicted to the crap, jack the price up! Because customers love to go from getting $500 per event to paying $500 per event overnight...or maybe paying $100 per event, then it would only take 5 years to get back all the money spent on sponsorship in the first year (ignoring cost of money). After that, we'd make a FORTUNE from the poor unsuspecting International Arbiters and Tournament Organisers, because we know that people never change so they'd be STUCK.... mwaa ha ha. Genius, pure evil genius!

No. Reality. Tornelo and other commercial products must meet customer needs and wants. If not they don't get used.

Only the ACF can afford to totally ignore feedback and results, content to sit back and preside over the slow decay of chess.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2011, 11:43 AM
Misleading links I still find a weird one....after all it was displaying the ACF Ratings and I was just linking back to the ACF homepage as a courtesy.

What you were displaying when those ratings initially went live were ratings that differed slightly from the ACF ratings in many cases and massively in others. They were not "ACF Ratings" as such, just something like it. Even now months after the system first went live Stephen Jablon is still showing as Australia's top rated player on Tornelo and you still haven't fixed it - that just looks totally shoddy. I can hardly believe you haven't fixed it months ago unless it's too hard to do or you're just being stubborn about one spectacularly wrong rating.

If courtesy was your main concern then when asked to remove the link you might have done the courtesy of doing so (even if not entirely comprehending the reasons for the request) and you would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and yourself from an eventual brief newsletter ban.


I would have been equally attacked by the ACF if I'd called them "Tornelo Ratings" because then you'd have said "Hey, they're the ACF Ratings - why are you trying to run a competing system..."

I suppose it would have been far too difficult to whack up on the site a brief non-misleading explanation of what was really going on and what they really were then. Probably could have written one for you if you asked me. ;)


How is the ACF being hurt?

The ACF has a responsibility to avoid confusion about players' actual ratings. Not everyone is up to speed with the latest political developments and it's quite possible that if there is a page with ratings up that look like the ACF ratings but aren't entirely right, and that has a link to the ACF and hence looks "approved" people will think those ratings are hunky-dory, use them for a tournament, and wind up awarding prizes to the wrong players. It doesn't matter what the chance of this or any other similar kind of confusion is, there is simply no reason it should happen.


"Unleashing" -- wow. :) The pairings at Ballarat were all calculated by SP under the watchful eye of an IA (and very experienced tournament organiser Kevin Perrin). We did try with Tornelo each round, but they were never good enough, so we manually changed them to match the SP pairings.

Which effectively means you were really doing the pairings using SP.


Take a look at recent Geelong...which got a few ACFers in a bit of a tizz...what's the difference if Tornelo "does" the pairings or SP "does" the pairings if after Tornelo "doing" pairings they are checked against SP.

Not the impression you created in your initial comments which implied that Tornelo was doing the pairings entirely on its own. Anyway in that case as stated above the pairings are really being "done" using SP. Which is fine if you are going to stick to that sort of thing, but for the comments you were making about how maybe it wasn't a big deal that Tornelo did not produce proper Dutch pairings and so long as it matched the basic principles of the system (which it actually didn't) then who cared.


On a REGULAR basis the SP pairings are changed to match the ones generated by Swiss Manager (at least half the rounds at Doeberl).....does that mean SP should also be banned and everyone forced to use SM? Should arbiters NOT be checking pairings themselves?

SP pairings should be checked against a better program or by a knowledgeable arbiter wherever possible, especially in major events. That said for all its problems and outdatedness, SP was still way ahead of where Tornelo was at Ballarat and even after the post-Ballarat improvements. Not having had opportunity to look at enough data for what you are using now, I trust this is no longer the case, but I don't know.

ChessGuru
02-06-2011, 03:12 PM
but for the comments you were making about how maybe it wasn't a big deal that Tornelo did not produce proper Dutch pairings and so long as it matched the basic principles of the system (which it actually didn't) then who cared.

Which were all made after I was already banned... justifications for the ACFs attitude from the start.

I asked the ACF for help/assistance/co-operation back in JANUARY...well before any of these comments were made, well before Ballarat....

The ACF (Gletsos) flatly refused to assist in any way. Gary Wastell was politely interested, but nothing more.

Comments from the start from ACF officials like: "I have no intention whatsoever of providing you with any information regarding the workings of the ACF rating system."

The ACF had 2 months to evaluate, give feedback, make suggestions etc about Tornelo before it was "unleashed" on the unsuspecting Ballarat event...the only thing they could think of to say was "It has been brought to my attention that your website tornelo.com has the words "Australian Chess Federation" and a corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com."

Which is completely ridiculous because I've never, ever told anyone to go to Tornelo.com - at the time it wasn't even googleable. It was an internal page which had links to the ratings systems that Tornelo was running....Gletsos with his digging found it and jumped on the opportunity to bitch about some minor detail.

And this was months after being just flat out unhelpful...so from unhelpful to aggressive and finally to banning Tornelo, and just for good measure anything related to what I do (Chess Kids, Chess World etc).

:wall:


SP pairings should be checked against a better program or by a knowledgeable arbiter wherever possible, especially in major events.
So what you're saying is that pairings should be "done" by a program other than SP. Why not ban SP then?

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Which were all made after I was already banned... justifications for the ACFs attitude from the start.

The ban on you (from being mentioned in the newsletter) had nothing to do with the Tornelo product as such and was purely about misleading references on its website.

As for the ban on Tornelo as a pairings engine, it was clear from Bendigo that it was nowhere near up to scratch at that stage. It was only suitable for use as a pairings engine to the extent that you allowed another pairings engine (or an expert arbiter who had time to hand-pair between rounds!) to override it in cases of disagreement. And in that case the other pairings engine is the real source of the pairings, you are not really pairing by Tornelo as such, and you are not actually affected by the ban.

Note also that the restriction on pairings engines was not purely aimed at Tornelo. I asked why the motion listed approved programs instead of just banning an unapproved one and it turned out there was at least one other program not considered up to scratch that has had some local usage.

And although you say Ballarat was pure SP, I recall it being identical for rounds 3 and 4 but with differences in the rounds after that.


The ACF had 2 months to evaluate, give feedback, make suggestions etc about Tornelo before it was "unleashed" on the unsuspecting Ballarat event...

And did you ever ask the ACF to vet the program as a pairings engine? I don't know the details of your contact with Gary (who was out of circulation for a while shortly after you contacted him) but your email approach to Bill was just in the context of seeking to acquire ratings files, initially for the purpose of offering to effectively host and process the ACF rating system. Given the numerous aspects of the program the ACF might have wanted to explore, you could have sent at least sent an email for the whole Exec or Council saying that you wanted to run this program for Ballarat, you were seeking feedback, and did we have any suggestions for improvement before this was done?


Which is completely ridiculous because I've never, ever told anyone to go to Tornelo.com - at the time it wasn't even googleable. It was an internal page which had links to the ratings systems that Tornelo was running....Gletsos with his digging found it and jumped on the opportunity to bitch about some minor detail.

Actually the first I knew about the misleading link was when someone from the general chess community (not a state or national admin) emailed me on the morning of 11 Feb, saying they'd seen this Tornelo thing in the Ballarat promotions and it gave the impression of being connected to the ACF. They were wondering if we actually knew anything about it and asking (but not sure) if Tornelo was you. This person had discovered for themselves, without major digging around, that Tornelo linked to the ACF in a curious fashion.

First I saw from Bill about the matter was late that night. So it wasn't "Gletsos with his digging" after all, and it wasn't Colonel Mustard in the Admin Panel with his 97 secret IP addresses either. The link was not at all difficult to find from the page you were using for Ballarat. One click away is my recollection.


So what you're saying is that pairings should be "done" by a program other than SP. Why not ban SP then?

I am saying the first ideally, but superior programs cost money while SP is free for Australian clubs. I don't think the ACF should mandate a program that people have to pay for just because it is somewhat better and therefore, although SP is not brilliant, the time for completely replacing it has not yet arrived.

jammo
02-06-2011, 08:24 PM
And who would that be then? I ask that because in one of your recent On The Move pieces you incorrectly said that I was the Deputy President.

Dear Kevin,

I know that you are a Vice-President and not the Deputy President. You seem to be under the impression that my post is about you. It's not about you, how you voted, your COI, your plans for the website or what you told David about Tornelo. It's about how the ACF handles issues and whether or not it is a forward-looking body focused on goals and results or whether it's the same old faces just going through the motions. (And perhaps being paranoid about anything to do with David).

By the way, I think you and Denis are good value on the ACF but replacing some of the others with new faces would be a good idea. I know it would never happen but if David (or someone like him) was in change of Australian Chess for a year or two we would be much better off. We would certainly have a good website. He actually does things.

Cheers,
Jammo

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2011, 12:06 AM
Dear Kevin,

I know that you are a Vice-President and not the Deputy President. You seem to be under the impression that my post is about you.

Only partly. I was seeking clarification as to whether that particular comment was about me, as I was not sure given that you had labelled me incorrectly in On The Move. I thought it was probably aimed at Bill but thought it should be clarified.

It was also clear that you were basing your view of how the ACF handled a particular issue (the website) in large part on my response. You even made a comment presaging that you were going to interpret my response in that fashion. When you do that and refer to "senior ACF officials" I think most people would read "senior" in terms of rank and take it as including the whole of the Exec.

Thanks for the clarification.

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2011, 08:13 PM
The pairings at Ballarat were all calculated by SP under the watchful eye of an IA (and very experienced tournament organiser Kevin Perrin). We did try with Tornelo each round, but they were never good enough, so we manually changed them to match the SP pairings. Go ahead and re-key the Ballarat event through SP and see how you go.

This is actually a difficult exercise without full information about any cases in which scores were retrospectively changed. For instance Ethan Lim got a half-point bye in round 5 moving to 3/5, but looking at where he appears in the list of pairings and given that he is one of two apparent downfloaters from the 3 group, it seems more likely that he was paired for round 6 as if on 2.5/5, for round 7 as if on 3.5/6 and then the half point for the round 5 bye was added some time after round 7 was paired.

Without full knowledge of all such cases it isn't possible to check since even a single player error will have cascading impacts affecting much of the field. For instance going into round 7, Dyer on 4.5 is downfloated to play Tan. At a first look I could not see why this was done since the 4 group with Dyer added has 11 black seekers and 9 white seekers therefore Dyer's board need not be a colour match and he should play Teichmann. But the explanation is actually the Lim situation since if (as looks likely) Lim was paired in the 3.5/6 group with the half-point bye being added retrospectively, then the 4/6 group with Dyer added would have a 9-10 colour split instead of 9-11, necessitating a colour match on Dyer's board and explaining why Dyer doesn't play Teichmann.

This seems to also be an issue for other bye recipients from round 5 and may largely explain why score-matching in the lower boards in round 6 and 7 is all over the place.

But even taking that into account there are some pairings that still don't make sense.

Every player on 0 or 0.5 going into round 5 was paired with someone on a different score, including a player on 1 playing a player on 0. Unnecessary since there are heaps of 1s and none of the 0s and 0.5s have played each other.

In round 6 Max Illingworth was upfloated but he was also upfloated in round 5. Appears unnecessary and incorrect as there are many players in his scoregroup who could be upfloated instead.

Was the pairing of Illingworth and Ari Dale in round 6 a manual pairing created by special circumstances and if so what were they?

By the way there is a good argument for doing the draw primarily in the more reliable program and then transferring it to the less reliable program that is being used for public display of information rather than the other way round. That is the possibility of human error in the process of transferring pairings manually.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2011, 11:26 PM
I agree with CG on this matter, yet can not see how it can possibly happen in the forseeble future unless there is a management change

Which you will do absolutely nothing to attempt to secure beyond complaining on a forum, and ditto for most others saying similar things.

Once again, for those who are interested in seeing replacement of any current ACF exec members, including me, what you need to do is convince your State Association to instruct its Conference delegates to nominate and vote for someone else at the next ACF National Conference which will be held in early 2013.

Note that anyone wanting to run for President needs to have their nomination to the ACF Secretary by 90 days before the Conference, ie by around the end of September 2012.

Denis_Jessop
06-06-2011, 03:35 PM
Nobody wants to be ACF webmaster because few people want to join the ACF. It isn't sexy, it isn't inspiring, it has no plans, no mission, no dream for people to get behind.

The answer is certainly not to pay someone. The answer is to improve the ACF "culture".

Grant, you nearly got there...you just need to ask "Why" a few more times (I'd say 5 times) before asking how and you'll be on top of it!

Really this is a very weak response. If people need to have sexy dreams the present state of affairs isn't stopping them. If people of the kind you refer to exist in the chess world and want to put their ideas into effect, they need to act. They won't get anywhere by sitting on the sidelines and weeping.

DJ

ChessGuru
06-06-2011, 05:57 PM
Really this is a very weak response. If people need to have sexy dreams the present state of affairs isn't stopping them. If people of the kind you refer to exist in the chess world and want to put their ideas into effect, they need to act. They won't get anywhere by sitting on the sidelines and weeping.

They do act. But then the Status-Quo machine goes into action and kills whatever enthusiasm was brewing... when people act they like to see fairly immediate action not "great idea, first you'd better talk your State Association into voting for you to get a committee position in 2013"... and when you go to the state association they'll tell you to do the same thing through a club.... and by then it's all over. The wheels of chess politics are so slow and resistant to movement that 99% of people have given up before they can even start.

Real world example: Nothing in the present state of affairs is "stopping" me from getting Tornelo up and running and significantly changing the way tournaments are run in this country. But, there are a few hurdles, a bit of resistance, and without a good 2-3 years of pushing shit uphill (and having a thick skin) it's not going to get anywhere. When the ACF sets this kind of example to the rest of the people with sexy dreams is it any wonder that they don't jump up and down. Most people don't care enough to go through all that suffering to help an organisation that doesn't really want to be helped...

Denis_Jessop
06-06-2011, 10:32 PM
They do act. But then the Status-Quo machine goes into action and kills whatever enthusiasm was brewing... when people act they like to see fairly immediate action not "great idea, first you'd better talk your State Association into voting for you to get a committee position in 2013"... and when you go to the state association they'll tell you to do the same thing through a club.... and by then it's all over. The wheels of chess politics are so slow and resistant to movement that 99% of people have given up before they can even start.

Real world example: Nothing in the present state of affairs is "stopping" me from getting Tornelo up and running and significantly changing the way tournaments are run in this country. But, there are a few hurdles, a bit of resistance, and without a good 2-3 years of pushing shit uphill (and having a thick skin) it's not going to get anywhere. When the ACF sets this kind of example to the rest of the people with sexy dreams is it any wonder that they don't jump up and down. Most people don't care enough to go through all that suffering to help an organisation that doesn't really want to be helped...

I think you might just be starting to appreciate what the real world is like. Having a bright idea and implementing it requires a great deal of hard slogging work that may end up getting you nowhere. I speak from personal experience in policy areas of the Australian Public Service. A belief that having a bright idea was all that was needed was a reason for the demise of the Whitlam Government.

As for the ACF a number of other factors exist including a misunderstanding by some of its proper role and its organisational structure neither of which has anything to do with personality of those who are its office bearers. Bear in mind also that major decisions are made either by the Council or the National Conference. The elected office bearers have a vote on the Council but so do 7 State and Territory delegates, while the OBs have no vote as such in a Conference. And that's just the beginning.

DJ

ChessGuru
06-06-2011, 11:53 PM
I think you might just be starting to appreciate what the real world is like.

It might have been the real world 50 years ago, but it isn't the real world today. Today is a world of instant gratification, instant results and speedy change.

Facebook didn't exist 5 years ago, Spreets, Cudo and all those other websites didn't exist 3 years ago. And in the time that Facebook and Twitter created billions of dollars (and members) what did the ACF get up to? It's all possible with the right attitude.

I appreciate the fact that these concepts are just so foreign to most chess administrators that they can't even comprehend them. The world is different now and needs people who can keep up.


Having a bright idea and implementing it requires a great deal of hard slogging work that may end up getting you nowhere. I speak from personal experience in policy areas of the Australian Public Service. A belief that having a bright idea was all that was needed was a reason for the demise of the Whitlam Government.

The public service of 20-40 years ago is certainly not what we should be modelling any organisation on!! Nobody's ever applauded government for their efficiency, results or ease with which things happen... Anyone who's ever filled out a government form can give you some pretty quick feedback.


As for the ACF a number of other factors exist including a misunderstanding by some of its proper role and its organisational structure neither of which has anything to do with personality of those who are its office bearers.

I disagree. It is a belief that the ACF holds as to what their role should be (paper-shufflers). To change the role of the ACF they just need to believe they have a different role. If it's too ingrained in the constitution of the ACF then just close it down. Start again the way it should be. It's a disposable world, toss out what doesn't work and start again.

We keep hearing how "its all too hard" and "its not my job". Let me tell you, it's easy. It's really easy and it's quick. You just need the right attitude, a belief in the possibility, an understanding of the way the world exists today and half an hour.

Real world example #2: Geelong Chess Club mentioned to me that they wanted to promote the Aus Champs at the end of the year. I told them they needed to put all the info on their website, but they said - oh, ah, um. I don't think they were really complaining about their website, but it was/is pretty ordinary.

By the end of THAT ROUND of the Geelong Open (60+30 games, so no more than 2 hours) I had created a new website for them, ported all their old stuff across, added sections for the Aus Champs and the Geelong Open. And there were pictures, videos, downloadable PDFs...and it looked decent, not amazing, but decent. Not only that, but it was setup so that anyone on the committee could log-in and update the site. And that was done while being arbiter and making sure EVERY game from the round was entered into Tornelo. Oh, and also it is free.

Imagine what someone could do in a 7 round tournament with 90+30 time controls! :)

So it is possible. VERY possible. The ACF can change. It can completely revolutionise in a matter of days. They just don't want to because it's different and different is scary.

The sad end to the GCC website story is that nothing has happened yet because it has to go through a dozen committee meetings where people who don't really understand what is going on can try to make a decision - same or different. Nobody seems to understand that everything is fleeting, easy to change, disposable.... change the website - don't like it, OK change it back. Takes 2 minutes.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2011, 12:36 AM
They do act. But then the Status-Quo machine goes into action and kills whatever enthusiasm was brewing... when people act they like to see fairly immediate action not "great idea, first you'd better talk your State Association into voting for you to get a committee position in 2013"... and when you go to the state association they'll tell you to do the same thing through a club.... and by then it's all over.

Well, firstly that's assuming there was a contest at all. Suppose there was someone who was reasonably young but reliable, enthusiastic, with a record of getting stuff done as opposed to just waffling, complaining or promising and not delivering. Suppose further that such a person did not have an obviously massive conflict of interest that would make it hard to do their job properly. If such a person was interested in an ACF Exec position they may well be able to find an incumbent happy to let them take over, quite likely unopposed.

Even in those rare cases where there is a serious contest, the system has its merits precisely because someone doesn't get a position just by rocking up to the ACF and stacking the meeting out of the blue with a bunch of mates. People who like to do things immediately and easily and who lack patience tend to get frustrated in/with voluntary society and are unlikely to last long in it.

Whether voluntary society should be that way is another question. My increasing impression (doubtless picked up from comments from others (including you) that I have come over time to believe have a point) is that the group nature of voluntary society absorbs an enormous amount of time and that a single capable and motivated person doing chess admin for a living, or having unlimited time to devote to it, could do more in a given year than most of the voluntary chess bodies put together while freeing up a lot of time for existing volunteers.

If I could actually see a way to get a sufficient income stream for the ACF to get it to that point I'd be pushing that very seriously.

ChessGuru
07-06-2011, 04:31 PM
Suppose further that such a person did not have an obviously massive conflict of interest that would make it hard to do their job properly.
The only people who will ever be that motivated to progress are those who have a vested interest in the success of chess. That vested interest might be financial, or it might be that their kids are good players, or that they are good players...whatever it is there is a conflict! I'd say Gletsos has a conflict of interest...not financial perhaps, but he's more interested in his personal power/control/status than development of chess. Wastell who's more interested in process than results. That's a conflict...it prevents them from making decisions which would improve CHESS because they prefer to choose a path that benefits THEM personally.

I don't think you can exclude anyone who makes any money from chess (coaching, events, retail or prizemoney) - there's too few people remaining. And if you're not also excluding people because of ego benefits then you still allowing conflicts.

Actually when you take a look most everyone is "conflicted" anyway, assuming the financial interest definition. Look at the CV executive, look at the organisers of the last 2 Aus Juniors, look at Brian Jones (OCC Pres, SIO, Grand Prix), look at the AJCL (Rogers, Zworestine, Zhao), the Doeberl Cup, SA Chess assn, SA junior chess.... Would you like all of those people to give up?



If such a person was interested in an ACF Exec position they may well be able to find an incumbent happy to let them take over, quite likely unopposed.

I'd like to get that in writing. :)

Let's say that a 6 people, all enthusiastic and capable came to the ACF just before National Conference...they say "hey, can we give it a go?" You really think that the current exec would just step back and say "sure, good luck"?

Ha! No way Wastell or Gletsos would ever relinquish their positions voluntarily... There would be so many buts and ifs... they would somehow find a way to disqualify anyone and everyone who stepped up. Too young, too inexperienced, conflict of interest...


If I could actually see a way to get a sufficient income stream for the ACF to get it to that point I'd be pushing that very seriously.

OK, I'll do it for 15% of the ACF annual revenue. No risk, no fixed cost. Or does that create a loop - someone being paid to improve the ACF now has a conflict of interest and so can't be involved any more?

Keong Ang
07-06-2011, 06:03 PM
OK, I'll do it for 15% of the ACF annual revenue. No risk, no fixed cost. Or does that create a loop - someone being paid to improve the ACF now has a conflict of interest and so can't be involved any more?

You're thinking too small... :lol:

Why just do it for the ACF?
FIDE has just launched a modernisation project (http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/5311-fide-foundation-for-modernisation-.html) and should soon be looking for suggestions on FIDE website.

Perhaps Tornelo for FIDE. What a coup that would be. The whole world's tournaments, would be run via Tornelo, and everything would be so much simpler. Even ratings, norms, etc. are all automated online. :owned:

Maybe there will even be a way to run virtual tournaments securely.
Somehow it seems more logical to send arbiters around the world to supervise virtual tournaments than to send planeloads of players to Siberia for an olympiad...

One thing I'm sure of, no Oceania zone federation board meets in such opulent venues!! Just check out the pictures at the bottom of the link (http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/5311-fide-foundation-for-modernisation-.html)! :eek:

If you're after 15% of ACF's annual revenue you can have it, I'd rather have 10% of FIDE's... ;)

ER
07-06-2011, 06:48 PM
Perhaps Tornelo for FIDE. What a coup that would be. The whole world's tournaments, would be run via Tornelo, and everything would be so much simpler. Even ratings, norms, etc. are all automated online. :owned:
;)

And Kirsan can't be tougher than Gletsos too! :P

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2011, 08:03 PM
The only people who will ever be that motivated to progress are those who have a vested interest in the success of chess.

Not the same as the kind of "obviously massive conflict of interest" I am talking about. Many people involved in chess admin have some degree of COI either from financial activities in chess or from the kind of player they are and it is manageable, usually by abstaining from decision-making on specific decisions that touch on that COI. Other people are so heavily financially involved in so many aspects of chess that it is doubtful whether they can ever manage that COI adequately since they have a financial interest in almost every decision taken.

Some decisions in theory affect everyone. But there's a well known principle that it's not COI when everyone has it. So for instance, any chessplayer has a vested interest in per-game fees being kept down, but that's not a reason for nobody on Council to vote on a motion to raise them.

Different styles of performing a position are not conflicts of interest; they are simply different approaches.


Let's say that a 6 people, all enthusiastic and capable came to the ACF just before National Conference...they say "hey, can we give it a go?" You really think that the current exec would just step back and say "sure, good luck"?

Six enthusiastic youngish capable non-seriously-conflicted people all suddenly sticking their hands up for positions at the same time is an extremely unlikely scenario.

That said, if that did happen and some incumbents still wanted to remain (which is likely) then the challengers could greatly cut lobbying effort by running together as a ticket.


OK, I'll do it for 15% of the ACF annual revenue. No risk, no fixed cost. Or does that create a loop - someone being paid to improve the ACF now has a conflict of interest and so can't be involved any more?

No loop but I'm not sure what you have in mind is the same as what I have in mind. What I'm thinking of is to have an executive position in which one person does virtually all the work currently done by the various ACF officebearers, including the non-council officebearers, and also does all the work that the ACF would ideally like to be doing but has no-one currently willing to do for free. Some tasks would continue to be done by volunteers because they were too specialised for that one person to do, or because they required group input, but Council's role would be mostly confined to setting policies for that employee to implement, and that employee would be answerable to Council.

Furthermore it would be done properly and by someone with doing it as their primary focus or one of their major focuses. For instance, no quick fixes like replacing Glicko with some kind of simple-to-run but statistically backwards Elo system at exactly the time that FIDE is initiating a Foundation for Modernisation that may well consign Elo to the dustbin.

I'm thinking it would be at least a 50% of full time task and that the cost to get someone to do a good job of it would exceed the ACF's current revenue.

Denis_Jessop
07-06-2011, 08:16 PM
It might have been the real world 50 years ago, but it isn't the real world today. Today is a world of instant gratification, instant results and speedy change.

Facebook didn't exist 5 years ago, Spreets, Cudo and all those other websites didn't exist 3 years ago. And in the time that Facebook and Twitter created billions of dollars (and members) what did the ACF get up to? It's all possible with the right attitude.

I appreciate the fact that these concepts are just so foreign to most chess administrators that they can't even comprehend them. The world is different now and needs people who can keep up.



The public service of 20-40 years ago is certainly not what we should be modelling any organisation on!! Nobody's ever applauded government for their efficiency, results or ease with which things happen... Anyone who's ever filled out a government form can give you some pretty quick feedback.



I disagree. It is a belief that the ACF holds as to what their role should be (paper-shufflers). To change the role of the ACF they just need to believe they have a different role. If it's too ingrained in the constitution of the ACF then just close it down. Start again the way it should be. It's a disposable world, toss out what doesn't work and start again.

We keep hearing how "its all too hard" and "its not my job". Let me tell you, it's easy. It's really easy and it's quick. You just need the right attitude, a belief in the possibility, an understanding of the way the world exists today and half an hour.

Real world example #2: Geelong Chess Club mentioned to me that they wanted to promote the Aus Champs at the end of the year. I told them they needed to put all the info on their website, but they said - oh, ah, um. I don't think they were really complaining about their website, but it was/is pretty ordinary.

By the end of THAT ROUND of the Geelong Open (60+30 games, so no more than 2 hours) I had created a new website for them, ported all their old stuff across, added sections for the Aus Champs and the Geelong Open. And there were pictures, videos, downloadable PDFs...and it looked decent, not amazing, but decent. Not only that, but it was setup so that anyone on the committee could log-in and update the site. And that was done while being arbiter and making sure EVERY game from the round was entered into Tornelo. Oh, and also it is free.

Imagine what someone could do in a 7 round tournament with 90+30 time controls! :)

So it is possible. VERY possible. The ACF can change. It can completely revolutionise in a matter of days. They just don't want to because it's different and different is scary.

The sad end to the GCC website story is that nothing has happened yet because it has to go through a dozen committee meetings where people who don't really understand what is going on can try to make a decision - same or different. Nobody seems to understand that everything is fleeting, easy to change, disposable.... change the website - don't like it, OK change it back. Takes 2 minutes.

Stap me! You've completely missed the point again. My point, briefly re-stated , is that having a bright idea isn't good enough - a lot of hard work is also required. If you assert, as you appear to, that the modern world is otherwise, that only explains why the modern world, especially government and private sector planning, is so sub-standard.

DJ

ChessGuru
07-06-2011, 09:49 PM
Not the same as the kind of "obviously massive conflict of interest" I am talking about. Many people involved in chess admin have some degree of COI either from financial activities in chess or from the kind of player they are and it is manageable, usually by abstaining from decision-making on specific decisions that touch on that COI. Other people are so heavily financially involved in so many aspects of chess that it is doubtful whether they can ever manage that COI adequately since they have a financial interest in almost every decision taken.

I doubt that ANY decision made by the ACF in the past 10 years would have made any financial impact on me. (Perhaps the one where the Aus Junior changed to have 2 or 3 games per day - that lost me 80% of coaching revenue because nobody has time for coaching. But then I was pushing for that change 10 years before it actually happened!)

Yet I assume that you would think I had a conflict...

I don't believe you are naiive enough to believe that someone with a COI abstains that they don't still have influence? You don't think Rogers on the AJCL is going to influence the decision of the rest of the committee as to who they pick to be coach (paid) of Squads, World Jnr etc? The "vote" is irrelevant...the influence was much more powerful.


Six enthusiastic youngish capable non-seriously-conflicted people all suddenly sticking their hands up for positions at the same time is an extremely unlikely scenario.

That's it isn't it...your definition of non-conflicted can be hazy enough to capture anyone that the existing club didn't like the sound of.


What I'm thinking of is to have an executive position in which one person does virtually all the work currently done by the various ACF officebearers, including the non-council officebearers, and also does all the work that the ACF would ideally like to be doing but has no-one currently willing to do for free.

OK. I'll do it. 15% of revenue -- that's about $1000. Unless you've got some Vietnamese 5 year old who wants to swap their Nike shoe-making job that sounds like a pretty good deal.


Some tasks would continue to be done by volunteers because they were too specialised for that one person to do, or because they required group input, but Council's role would be mostly confined to setting policies for that employee to implement, and that employee would be answerable to Council.

Or because Bill Gletsos doesn't want to lose any power. :)


Furthermore it would be done properly and by someone with doing it as their primary focus or one of their major focuses.

I think you'll find that all the people who you excluded with your "COI" had chess as their primary (or major) focus!


For instance, no quick fixes like replacing Glicko with some kind of simple-to-run but statistically backwards Elo system at exactly the time that FIDE is initiating a Foundation for Modernisation that may well consign Elo to the dustbin.

A formula is just a formula...easy to change, change back, whatever. Bear in mind that sometimes a quick fix is better than a leaky boat. Plug the hole with your finger, chewing gum, whatever -- then when the boat stops leaking you can bail out enough water to get to land and fix it properly. Caulk, wood, nails all the rest...even paint, varnish and decorations!


I'm thinking it would be at least a 50% of full time task and that the cost to get someone to do a good job of it would exceed the ACF's current revenue.
Depends who's doing it...I think I could do everything the ACF has done in the last 10 years in a week. As long as I didn't have to have the hours and hours of unproductive meetings. And I think that there are lot of other people who could do the same...

Pity I've been ruled out for some reason....

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2011, 10:46 PM
I doubt that ANY decision made by the ACF in the past 10 years would have made any financial impact on me.

That is funny because over the last 4-5 years I have personally abstained on something like 20 motions precisely because it was obvious they could potentially impact on your business success and hence in theory indirectly impact on me on account of the work I had been doing. A recent case, ironically, was the decision to ban you from being mentioned in the ACF Newsletter until you remedied the wording on the Tornelo site. Now just imagine what would happen if you were on Council and a motion of that kind came up for voting. Would you try to argue that there was no problem with you voting on it?


I don't believe you are naiive enough to believe that someone with a COI abstains that they don't still have influence?

That influence can be minimised where necessary by not participating in the discussion and better still by not even observing it - the proverbial "leaving the room" standard. In severe cases (a recent example being the clocks mediation request) I have asked the rest of the Exec that I not even be copied on any discussion of a given matter.

Of course, strong influence will still exist despite the most stringent abstentions in some cases. For instance, a person who is doing excellent work on a committee stands to benefit financially from a decision by that committee. The committee may be inclined to appoint that person partly to avoid risk of losing their services. Still, the committee are not financial beneficiaries of that decision.


That's it isn't it...your definition of non-conflicted can be hazy enough to capture anyone that the existing club didn't like the sound of.

Only if someone's conception of COI is as hazy as mine isn't. :lol:


OK. I'll do it. 15% of revenue -- that's about $1000. Unless you've got some Vietnamese 5 year old who wants to swap their Nike shoe-making job that sounds like a pretty good deal.

$1000 at minimum wage (which I doubt you'd be especially attracted by) is about 67 hours. In an Olympiad year you wouldn't get much change out of that (if any) by the time you'd done the work currently done by the Selections Director (including team registrations) alone. I reckon if you tried doing all of what I suggested for $1000 you'd end up thinking the 5 year old had it good.


I think you'll find that all the people who you excluded with your "COI" had chess as their primary (or major) focus!

Indeed but that is not the same as having the ACF's portion of the chess work as their primary focus. The part they have as their primary focus is generally the part that makes money.

Rhubarb
08-06-2011, 01:28 AM
I think I could do everything the ACF has done in the last 10 years in a week. Man, you are seriously deluded if you believe that.

Grant Szuveges
08-06-2011, 02:12 AM
There are lots of examples of "what they said, what we think they meant" on this thread - lets get to it people!

Grant Szuveges
08-06-2011, 02:18 AM
Or because Bill Gletsos doesn't want to lose any power. :)


Now this is probably an example of "what they said, what we think they meant"... I will leave it to David's discretion whether he wants to include it in the appropriate thread or not...

ChessGuru
08-06-2011, 09:14 AM
A recent case, ironically, was the decision to ban you from being mentioned in the ACF Newsletter until you remedied the wording on the Tornelo site. Now just imagine what would happen if you were on Council and a motion of that kind came up for voting. Would you try to argue that there was no problem with you voting on it?
Still, makes no difference to my financial situation if Tornelo is banned or not.


Of course, strong influence will still exist despite the most stringent abstentions in some cases. For instance, a person who is doing excellent work on a committee stands to benefit financially from a decision by that committee. The committee may be inclined to appoint that person partly to avoid risk of losing their services. Still, the committee are not financial beneficiaries of that decision.
Like Garvin Gray being Pres of CAQ and paid big arbiter fees for tnts. Like Sandler being Pres of CV and being paid organiser feed for tnts. Like Rogers being VP of AJCL and being paid as head coach. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be coach or arbiter....just it's a lot more direct financial benefit than me voting on Tornelo being banned or not.


$1000 at minimum wage (which I doubt you'd be especially attracted by) is about 67 hours. In an Olympiad year you wouldn't get much change out of that (if any) by the time you'd done the work currently done by the Selections Director (including team registrations) alone. I reckon if you tried doing all of what I suggested for $1000 you'd end up thinking the 5 year old had it good.
I've just said I'd do it....I'm not paid by the hour, but on a results basis. For 15% of ACF revenue I will do all your jobs. It's an offer in writing...take me up on it if you like.

Let's take selections as a first step... give me a step-by-step breakdown of what you need to do and I'll show you how I'd do the entire job in a few hours. Because let's face it - there are no surprises...every 2 years the ACF has to select an Olympiad team. And don't worry, I wouldn't dare suggest the obvious "Olympiad selection based on ratings" (because now we have such accurate Glicko ratings we may as well use them) because I know that the feeling of power and control is critically important to the ACF, so allowing an independent, unobjective selection process is just NOT ON. :D


Indeed but that is not the same as having the ACF's portion of the chess work as their primary focus. The part they have as their primary focus is generally the part that makes money.
Ahh, if only the ACF knew what it's Primary Focus should be that would make this discussion easier. :)

ChessGuru
08-06-2011, 09:20 AM
Man, you are seriously deluded if you believe that.
And if you went back 10 years and told someone all the things that would be possible today they'd say the same thing.

So either I'm deluded or the ACF is 10 years behind ... take your pick. :)

Basil
08-06-2011, 09:34 AM
So either I'm deluded or the ACF is 10 years behind ... take your pick.
You're definitely deluded. No question.

Rincewind
08-06-2011, 10:21 AM
You're definitely deluded. No question.

Ditto.

antichrist
08-06-2011, 01:59 PM
And if you went back 10 years and told someone all the things that would be possible today they'd say the same thing.

So either I'm deluded or the ACF is 10 years behind ... take your pick. :)

I love your cheek - I am backing you.

If one of your proposals deserve voting support in spite of you making two bob out of it and KB takes himself out of the voting due to supposed COI than it is not a good result for anyone

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2011, 03:49 PM
Let's take selections as a first step... give me a step-by-step breakdown of what you need to do and I'll show you how I'd do the entire job in a few hours.

Hmmm, I'm actually moving on to new challenges soon (hopefully) so perhaps this won't be entirely wasted time as it may give potential replacements some idea of the process. But it took me more than one hour just to list them all!

What I suspect you will do is query that a number of these things are actually necessary and propose an alternative - but it may well have been considered before and you may just not be aware of why it's done the way it is.

* Determine appropriate dates for application deadline. Ideally this should be done well over a year in advance so that the deadline for the 20 games activity requirement can be announced. Need to take into account not only the announced dates of the Olympiad and how much time is needed to organise travel and registration, but also what tournaments are going on in the leadup to the Olympiad. You wouldn't want to have a deadline for selector votes on the same day Doeberl ends.

* Send out notices calling for applications, stating deadlines, required information, relevant rules etc. This goes to ACF newsletter, Chesschat etc but also I keep a backup email list in case the newsletter is in hiatus (as has been the case in the past). Maintain backup email list for this purpose.

* Receive and respond to applications (typically about 20), including vetting applications to ensure all necessary details have been provided and supporting material is consistent with necessary wordlength. If this is not the case contact applicants and inform them they need to provide more details and what they need to provide or if any changes are needed. A few Olympiads back we had the problem that a supporting statement was defamatory.

* Check eligibility of all candidates to represent Australia and follow up with candidate for more details in unclear cases. May be necessary to check FIDE by-laws or check with FIDE admin officer. If a candidate is in the process of transferring to Australia then they may or may not be able to complete their transfer in time. We had one selection process where the eligibility of most of the women's team was unclear. Sometimes a candidate's eligibility will depend on whether they can be granted residency in time. In this case you need to keep tabs on how this is going. A borderline candidate can be provisionally included but if it becomes clear they cannot make it then they need to be removed from the process.

* Check that all applicants have met the 20 game activity requirement and answer emails from applicants regarding it. Some applicants who are working overseas actually have great difficulty reaching the 20 game mark and it is often necessary to follow up details of some obscure tournament played in France or Spain or wherever to make sure that the player is active enough to apply for selection. Where they are playing in tournaments not rated by FIDE but rated by an overseas federation it is often necessary to investigate that country's rating system to ensure the data it provides is adequate and can be converted to ACF/FIDE-equivalent.

* If slightly late applications are received (this happens fairly often) decide whether reason given for late application is acceptable in that applicant applied late due to circumstances that were beyond their control.

* Inform all applicants and interested followers of process of list of players who have applied and whose applications have been accepted.

* Deal with any follow-up emails from candidates - some will apply early then send further information.

* Contact ratings officer to obtain ratings files for applicants. Check files to ensure all applicants are included in files.

* Recruit five suitable selectors from the broader selections panel for each team. Some may be the same but there are some selectors who are only suitable to select one team or the other. Ideally you have to be confident that the selectors do not have serious conflicts of interest concerning any applicant who is picked, and also that the group of selectors picked is not overly weighted in favour of any one state. Not all initial approaches will be successful as some selectors may be unavailable or not interested, in which case more selectors must be approached.

* Transfer candidates' supporting statements and list of results into a readably formatted file for public display and passing on to selectors.

* Find very recent Australian results for candidates that are too recent to have been included in the rating system or often even in the candidates' applications. I typically do this by searching this forum and the ACF Newsletter for data by name. Format these for public display and passing on to selectors.

* Extract recent overseas results for candidates from FIDE website to forward to selectors. This avoids disadvantage to candidates who play mainly outside Australia.

* Publicly display ratings data, supporting statements and supplied results, recent ACF results and overseas FIDE-rated results for public scrutiny and comment. This is necessary to avoid any errors in supplied material. Errors are rare but there have been rare instances where, for instance, a player had an incorrect rating as a result of an incorrectly submitted result.

* Pass all material on to selectors at start of selection period together with instructions on when votes are required by and all necessary details of requirements.

* Answer any queries from selectors, especially new selectors. For instance sometimes a selector will say they want to know if they can take a particular factor into account in ranking a candidate.

* As votes come in from selectors, check them to ensure that they are valid and enter them into an Excel table to sum totals. Check data entry carefully and repeatedly - mistakes absolutely must not occur. Break ties using by-law provisions, reading these carefully. Send copy to ACF President for oversight purposes.

* A few days from deadline, remind all selectors who have not yet cast votes of the deadline.

* It's a few hours before the deadline and one or two selectors still haven't voted (this often happens). Follow-up with that selector and find out what is going on - can give them an extension if necessary but you'd want it to be as short as possible as applicants will be eagerly awaiting the outcomes. The selector may be just a master of the last minute or their computer may have just melted into a puddle. If a selector doesn't vote by the deadline (as extended if necessary) this is a disaster as their vote will have to be excluded or else a successful appeal could occur.

* Circulate provisional selection outcomes to all applicants and release same. Instruct applicants on their right to appeal.

* Deal with appeals if any received (if you've done everything else well this probably won't happen but rest assured it can take a few hours to deal with by itself.)

* Ask all selected candidates to confirm their availability within a given amount of time or else say when they can confirm. Some candidates will not be able to confirm their availability right away, and you don't want to lose your top board player, but what do you do if the clock is ticking down and there is a risk that if a player does pull out there may not be enough time for reserves to get ready? These situations can be very delicate. Note that even if you set a deadline for "confirming" availability a player could say they confirm and then decide they're not sure after all.

* Keep tabs on players who are having passport issues and make sure they are able to get their passport renewed in time so that they will not have to be de-selected and replaced at the last moment.

* Issue call for applications for captaincy. Acknowledge same.

* Circulate applications for captaincy to players seeking their preferences as to the rankings of prospective captains.

* Forward captaincy applications and information on prospective captains to Council (which appoints captains) and attempt to ensure some shred of integrity in the resulting vote and some kind of confidentiality for players who have supplied comments. This can be extremely difficult if a captaincy applicant is also an ACF Councillor and the vote is tightly contested.

* Handle registration of candidates on official website. Ideally the captains would do most of this but the official site may have sprung a surprise by requiring registrations to be conducted earlier than you expected when you set the selection deadlines so long ago, in which case the captains haven't been appointed yet. In this circumstance the SC has to act as a de facto travel agent by obtaining passport photos from players, determining their preferred airports for charter flights, and so on, and entering all this into a registration page that is generally not particularly user-friendly.


And don't worry, I wouldn't dare suggest the obvious "Olympiad selection based on ratings" (because now we have such accurate Glicko ratings we may as well use them) because I know that the feeling of power and control is critically important to the ACF, so allowing an independent, unobjective selection process is just NOT ON.

I'm sure I've dealt with this claim several times before on here. The problem with using ratings alone as a selection process is that players can manipulate their own ratings by picking and choosing which events to play in if the incentive is strong enough. Human oversight is needed to ensure this doesn't occur. The USA used to pick its teams solely by ratings; the results were always horrible. In our system ratings are an excellent guide and the selectors will often select more or less in ratings order but they have oversight to deal with cases where a rating is not representative for whatever reason. Any rating system has such cases.

antichrist
08-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Well if CG can do ten years ACF in a week that is about 6 hours allocated work per year - to do all those things. He must be a terrific combined simul and blitz player

Grant Szuveges
08-06-2011, 05:46 PM
So either I'm deluded or the ACF is 10 years behind ... take your pick. :)

I wouldve thought that this comment wouldve come under a bit of scrutiny in "What they said, what we think they meant"...

Ive added a few new ones from this thread (David and Kevin this time)

ChessGuru
08-06-2011, 06:45 PM
What I suspect you will do is query that a number of these things are actually necessary and propose an alternative - but it may well have been considered before and you may just not be aware of why it's done the way it is.
Of course - the easiest way to save time is to do less. :)

OK - here are my suggestions in brief:
* More structured process, set dates/rules and stick to them
* All information collection/distribution via website (automated)
* Put responsibility for much more back onto players
* Stick to the rules you set...if that means Rogers misses out on the team one year because he filled his form in wrong, too bad.


Since 1976 there have only been 2 Olympiads NOT held in the later part of the year (Sept-Dec). So whatever processes we develop we base them on the assumption that Olympiad will be during those months.

Also, players' strengths (at that end of the spectrum) don't change all that rapidly, so you could have selections due immediately after SIO each year, selectors who are late are replaced and not used again.

Forget 'applications':
Get the selectors to pick from the Top 15 (or 20 if you don't trust the ratings that much) eligible players on the ratings list. It shouldn't be an issue to have an eligibility criteria which is easy to automatically determine (eg. min 20 games on FIDE or ACF lists). I would be putting some more effort into refining the eligibility criteria as well, but we don't need to go into that now.

Give a lot more responsibility to the players!
You're holding hands, babysitting them way too much. If they want to be on the team they can fill in the forms or miss out. Set deadlines and stick to them ... it will only take one person to miss out one year by one minute for everyone to realise that you mean what you say and toe the line.

All notices etc onto the Olympiad section of the website. Forms are filled in there and it has a secure display for selectors to view information. No need to reformat anything - if candidates submit defamatory or inappropriate application support documents then bin them, simple. You don't need to "advertise" this really, anyone dumb enough not to realise that an olympiad is coming up doesn't deserve to be on the team...and with 'auto-applications' if they are a Zhao or Smerdon shoe-in for the team they don't have to be bothered with filling out pointless forms.

Now you don't need to do any of the response/receive applications. Required fields, format rules etc on the website will make sure applications in are appropriate.

It sounds like you're dealing with a local entry to a club weekender, not an Olympiad team. Man, set some rules and stick by them... most of the time consuming stuff is in the double-checking, chasing people to get the forms in and stuff....if they want to be on the team they do what they need to do, by when you say they need to do it. If they miss out because they're lazy, tough.

Any updating of supporting documentation can be updated by the applicant online.

Ratings data and tournament data - selectors can just open up the Tornelo page for each player and see history, performance ratings, opponent results and even games....


Ideally you have to be confident that the selectors do not have serious conflicts of interest concerning any applicant who is picked, :)

No comments...but sure, make 10 phone calls to find your selectors. Although I'd be looking at the process surrounding the composition of that panel...why have people on it in an olympiad year who aren't available or are conflicted. That should have been sorted out ages ago.


* Transfer candidates' supporting statements and list of results into a readably formatted file for public display and passing on to selectors.
All this double handling. Basic principal ... touch each piece of data ONCE and only once... after that the website will handle the rest.


* Find very recent Australian results for candidates that are too recent to have been included in the rating system or often even in the candidates' applications.

Tornelo has live results of all events...so skip this step.


* Extract recent overseas results for candidates from FIDE website to forward to selectors. This avoids disadvantage to candidates who play mainly outside Australia.
Without wanting to go into the philosophy of team selection (I think if you're representing Aus then you owe Aus a debt of gratitude and so if you play mainly outside Aus then you SHOULD be disadvantaged).... leave this up to the players. If they want data considered it is THEIR responsibility to provide that data....and it is the selectors responsibility to ensure that the data is true and correct (and if not to alert someone who can then ban that applicant for life for cheating on their exams).


* Pass all material on to selectors at start of selection period together with instructions on when votes are required by and all necessary details of requirements.

It's all on the website, same each year.


* Answer any queries from selectors, especially new selectors. This is part of the selection of selectors process, training and induction.


* As votes come in from selectors, check them to ensure that they are valid and enter them into an Excel table to sum totals. Check data entry carefully and repeatedly - mistakes absolutely must not occur. Break ties using by-law provisions, reading these carefully. Send copy to ACF President for oversight purposes.

All auto-done by web.


* A few days from deadline, remind all selectors who have not yet cast votes of the deadline.

Automatic emails. Failure to cast by deadline, removal of selector permanently from panel. Publicly shame them for being a lazy bum. It won't happen again.


* Deal with appeals if any received (if you've done everything else well this probably won't happen but rest assured it can take a few hours to deal with by itself.)

Have a 'no appeals' rule. If you have faith in the process then the only way someone should be able to appeal is in the supreme court. :)

* Keep tabs on players ...
No keeping tabs...just a structured process, someone doesn't comply they miss out.


* Handle registration of candidates on official website.
Captains' job.


So yes, there is some investment required to setup the process, but you've got a really well documented system already. All you need to do is automate what can be automated, pass responsibility back to players for what they should be doing and not double-handle data or baby the players. This is the olympiad ...the most important event of their lives. Players can do their part or miss out...after all if we lose a Rogers or Johansen because of poor paperwork it might affect our end result so we finish 40th instead of 36th. Big deal...

Grant Szuveges
08-06-2011, 07:42 PM
Of course - the easiest way to save time is to do less. :)

OK - here are my suggestions in brief:
* More structured process, set dates/rules and stick to them
* All information collection/distribution via website (automated)
* Put responsibility for much more back onto players
* Stick to the rules you set...if that means Rogers misses out on the team one year because he filled his form in wrong, too bad.


Since 1976 there have only been 2 Olympiads NOT held in the later part of the year (Sept-Dec). So whatever processes we develop we base them on the assumption that Olympiad will be during those months.

Also, players' strengths (at that end of the spectrum) don't change all that rapidly, so you could have selections due immediately after SIO each year, selectors who are late are replaced and not used again.

Forget 'applications':
Get the selectors to pick from the Top 15 (or 20 if you don't trust the ratings that much) eligible players on the ratings list. It shouldn't be an issue to have an eligibility criteria which is easy to automatically determine (eg. min 20 games on FIDE or ACF lists). I would be putting some more effort into refining the eligibility criteria as well, but we don't need to go into that now.

Give a lot more responsibility to the players!
You're holding hands, babysitting them way too much. If they want to be on the team they can fill in the forms or miss out. Set deadlines and stick to them ... it will only take one person to miss out one year by one minute for everyone to realise that you mean what you say and toe the line.

All notices etc onto the Olympiad section of the website. Forms are filled in there and it has a secure display for selectors to view information. No need to reformat anything - if candidates submit defamatory or inappropriate application support documents then bin them, simple. You don't need to "advertise" this really, anyone dumb enough not to realise that an olympiad is coming up doesn't deserve to be on the team...and with 'auto-applications' if they are a Zhao or Smerdon shoe-in for the team they don't have to be bothered with filling out pointless forms.

Now you don't need to do any of the response/receive applications. Required fields, format rules etc on the website will make sure applications in are appropriate.

It sounds like you're dealing with a local entry to a club weekender, not an Olympiad team. Man, set some rules and stick by them... most of the time consuming stuff is in the double-checking, chasing people to get the forms in and stuff....if they want to be on the team they do what they need to do, by when you say they need to do it. If they miss out because they're lazy, tough.

Any updating of supporting documentation can be updated by the applicant online.

Ratings data and tournament data - selectors can just open up the Tornelo page for each player and see history, performance ratings, opponent results and even games....

:)

No comments...but sure, make 10 phone calls to find your selectors. Although I'd be looking at the process surrounding the composition of that panel...why have people on it in an olympiad year who aren't available or are conflicted. That should have been sorted out ages ago.


All this double handling. Basic principal ... touch each piece of data ONCE and only once... after that the website will handle the rest.


Tornelo has live results of all events...so skip this step.


Without wanting to go into the philosophy of team selection (I think if you're representing Aus then you owe Aus a debt of gratitude and so if you play mainly outside Aus then you SHOULD be disadvantaged).... leave this up to the players. If they want data considered it is THEIR responsibility to provide that data....and it is the selectors responsibility to ensure that the data is true and correct (and if not to alert someone who can then ban that applicant for life for cheating on their exams).


It's all on the website, same each year.

This is part of the selection of selectors process, training and induction.



All auto-done by web.


Automatic emails. Failure to cast by deadline, removal of selector permanently from panel. Publicly shame them for being a lazy bum. It won't happen again.



Have a 'no appeals' rule. If you have faith in the process then the only way someone should be able to appeal is in the supreme court. :)

No keeping tabs...just a structured process, someone doesn't comply they miss out.


Captains' job.


So yes, there is some investment required to setup the process, but you've got a really well documented system already. All you need to do is automate what can be automated, pass responsibility back to players for what they should be doing and not double-handle data or baby the players. This is the olympiad ...the most important event of their lives. Players can do their part or miss out...after all if we lose a Rogers or Johansen because of poor paperwork it might affect our end result so we finish 40th instead of 36th. Big deal...

I must admit, what David is saying here is very impressive. I agree with him totally.

Lets look at something similar: University.

At university, it is up to the student to hand their assignments in on time, its up to the student to do all of the appropriate reading, its up to the student to do their own research and its up to the student to contact the uni or the lecturer or whoever if they need help or special consideration etc. Its all up to the student to take the initiative themselves! The student does not have their hand held by the lecturer, the tutuor, the facaulty, the uni or any other body - its up to them to keep up with deadlines.

How many players who have been involved in the last few Olympiads have a university education? (Johansen, Rogers, Wohl, Zhao, Smerdon to name a few) And the ones who dont are still certainly intelligent enough / competant enough / committeed enough to have one.

I agree with David, let them apply for the position and get their applications in on time and the whole process runs much more smoothly. If they need help, they can contact the ACF and ask questions. This would be a much more efficient system.

Other examples from the real world:

1. If you apply for a passport you need to do the paperwork yourself and submit it. (the govt doesnt do it for you)

2. If you need to pay your electricity bill, you take the initiative to pay it (otherwise the electricity company disconnects it)

3. When your car registration is due, its up to you to pay it and then when they send you the new sticker, its up to you to put in onto your front windscreen (the govt doesnt send a guy around to your house to put the sticker on).

Strangely enough, I remember travelling back from the Geelong Open approx 15 years ago with a group of chess players. The driver got pulled over by the police for allegedly running a red light. The police officer mentioned that the sticker had not been updated and asked the driver (a 1700 rated chess player) why. The driver/player replied with "I dont know how". The police officer then asked "You dont know how to put a sticker on?" The chess player stated then that he wasnt very good at doing things with his hands.

In the end the police officer didnt charge him as he had claimed that the red light he allegedly ran was amber not red. I dont know whether the police officer decided not to pursue it because there were 3 other people in the car who may have been able to back up the amber light story, or whether he just felt sorry for him for not knowing how to put a sticker on. For the record, I cant remember for the life of me whether I was sitting in the front seat or the back seat at the time and I cant remember whether the light was amber or red - or even if I had noticed at the time...

In any case, as long as this guy doesnt want to be in the Olympiad team, then I think that most potential Olympiad players would know how to get their paperwork in on time....

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2011, 09:42 PM
Since 1976 there have only been 2 Olympiads NOT held in the later part of the year (Sept-Dec). So whatever processes we develop we base them on the assumption that Olympiad will be during those months.

An assumption that's now and then false, and what do you do then? Furthermore if an Olympiad is in September then just after SIO isn't actually enough time. There were some critical deadlines in the registration process four months out from the start of the Olympiad. You can push it back further but then for a December olympiad you might be picking teams nine months before the thing is held which in terms of sensitivity to current form is not a great idea.


Also, players' strengths (at that end of the spectrum) don't change all that rapidly, so you could have selections due immediately after SIO each year, selectors who are late are replaced and not used again.

If you replace a selector who has failed to submit in time then you need to add the time to recruit that new selector and the time for them to make their decision to the process. Selecting Olympiad teams is actually very challenging and it's unfair to expect a volunteer to do it in less than about two weeks. One bit you got right there: selectors who are late are not used again.


Forget 'applications':
Get the selectors to pick from the Top 15 (or 20 if you don't trust the ratings that much) eligible players on the ratings list.

Firstly this creates more work for everyone. Instead of just ranking the players who have actually applied, the selectors now have to rank players who have not applied and who may not be actually interested. You may also lose selectors at this point, for instance if they have a COI concerning a player in that list who was not going to apply anyway (especially amusing if they are that player). Then after the selectors do this you have to approach the players going through them one by one to find out who is actually interested, with a lot of time wasted approaching people who are not. So that suggestion doesn't reduce work, it increases it.


It shouldn't be an issue to have an eligibility criteria which is easy to automatically determine (eg. min 20 games on FIDE or ACF lists).

This one is debatable. It was considered that overseas-based or travelling players should be allowed to count games that are equivalent to ACF rated games.


Give a lot more responsibility to the players!
You're holding hands, babysitting them way too much. If they want to be on the team they can fill in the forms or miss out. Set deadlines and stick to them ... it will only take one person to miss out one year by one minute for everyone to realise that you mean what you say and toe the line.

The provision for late applications to be accepted under special circumstances is in the By-Laws. It's been reformed to a degree in my time (eg there is now a cap on how late they can be and still be accepted under any circumstances) and I am pretty harsh on players who give inadequate reasons, and have closed off lots of loopholes and excuses like "email problems". I would support going further and simply banning late applications unless the reason they were received late is the fault of the receiver. Not yet the view of Council however.


All notices etc onto the Olympiad section of the website. Forms are filled in there and it has a secure display for selectors to view information. No need to reformat anything - if candidates submit defamatory or inappropriate application support documents then bin them, simple. You don't need to "advertise" this really, anyone dumb enough not to realise that an olympiad is coming up doesn't deserve to be on the team...and with 'auto-applications' if they are a Zhao or Smerdon shoe-in for the team they don't have to be bothered with filling out pointless forms.

Actually you do need all candidates to provide information because much of the information that is provided is not "pointless" at all but is needed for team registration purposes and to ensure you can contact applicants by a variety of means if you need to. Furthermore questions like passport numbers need to be asked to make sure a player has their passport details in order well in advance.

You might say that this is babysitting but unfortunately it is necessary babysitting because self-interest is sometimes not a strong enough consideration to force people to get organised. I continually hear of cases where teams travelling for events are disadvantaged because so-and-so mucked up their passport, couldn't play and couldn't be replaced in time. That's something we aim very strongly to avoid because our objective is to field the best team.


Man, set some rules and stick by them... most of the time consuming stuff is in the double-checking, chasing people to get the forms in and stuff....

Actually there are set rules (the by-laws) and I am sticking by them so I don't know what you're talking about there. Players are not chased up to get forms in but they are chased up to get them accurate if stuff is missing. You can do this electronically via a website that refuses to accept the form until all fields are filled, but those things aren't perfect either, what's there still has to be checked by a human.


Ratings data and tournament data - selectors can just open up the Tornelo page for each player and see history, performance ratings, opponent results and even games....

And one can see that a club-level Sydney player is a grandmaster. Which may be no problem in that selectors know he isn't, but what if they see an unduly high performance rating for a player who played him and don't realise that a bug has contributed to that result?

Tornelo is not up to scratch for use as an information resource for selections at this moment. And if you're going to count Tornelo you need to factor in a share of the time it will take getting it up to scratch. Actually I'm curious as to how you would ensure that tournaments held since the last ratings period are always on it.


No comments...but sure, make 10 phone calls to find your selectors. Although I'd be looking at the process surrounding the composition of that panel...why have people on it in an olympiad year who aren't available or are conflicted. That should have been sorted out ages ago.

Here I think you misunderstand what "the panel" is. The ACF selection panel is simply a (long) list of people who have been cleared by the ACF as suitable to be selectors. Some of them are only suitable for particular things like junior selection, some of them are suitable for most selections but have conflicts of interest on some, and so on. Some of them have not been used for donkey's years and may as well be dropped.

For each selection a selection group, typically of five selectors, is formed from that panel. They might be the same five who did some other selection that year or the previous, they might not. Not a good idea to do this before you know who is applying as you just end up creating more work for yourself. An intended selector might themselves apply, or depending on who applies they may have a serious COI and have to be replaced.


Tornelo has live results of all events...so skip this step.

Currently incorrect; it has live results of all events that use Tornelo.


If they want data considered it is THEIR responsibility to provide that data....and it is the selectors responsibility to ensure that the data is true and correct (and if not to alert someone who can then ban that applicant for life for cheating on their exams).

Ah, but for overseas data to be useful you need it to be true, correct and complete, not just an applicant's cherrypicked presentation of their greatest hits. So the selectors have to research the applicant's other results anyway. More efficient if one person does it rather than five, and then the selectors have all the relevant data passed to them on an equal level to look at whatever they want.


This is part of the selection of selectors process, training and induction.

Training and induction for selectors? More work! And if some obscure question comes up covered in someone's training and induction from many years ago they may not remember the answer anyway.


Have a 'no appeals' rule. If you have faith in the process then the only way someone should be able to appeal is in the supreme court. :)

Yes - which someone did, and that's why we have appeals. It creates an easier process by which anything that goes badly wrong can be nipped in the bud cheaply without having to go to court over it. Even unsuccessful court cases like the Depasquale one are very disruptive for a voluntary organisation to fight.


No keeping tabs...just a structured process, someone doesn't comply they miss out.

Potentially leaving their country under-represented and their team-mates disadvantaged by having to play every single round. They are very inflexible about late withdrawals these days. Last Olympiad there were many teams not allowed to replace players in this sort of situation because of inflexible FIDE rules.

The main goal of the ACF is for Australia to do as well in the Olympiad as we can. That goal is not furthered if we end up having a 3-player team rock up because two members have stuffed their passport or become unavailable at the last minute.

You seem to have some view that we can run a smooth Olympiad process by simply ditching players who muck up on the grounds that the self-interest advantage of being an Olympian is sufficient to motivate them to get it right. But in reality many players are not playing out of self-interest and are actually making considerable sacrifices to play in the event in order to help their nation do better than if they were not available. If we start ditching players left right and centre for minor stuffups that could have been anticipated and avoided then we end up with a second-string team.


Captains' job.

I see you conveniently ignored the bit about how it is not always possible to be certain captains will be selected by then, because of the unpredictable behaviour of Olympiad organisers in setting registration deadlines.


This is the olympiad ...the most important event of their lives.

It's doubtless important to many players to play in an Olympiad at least once. Whether they play in seven Olympiads as opposed to six may not be such a big deal for them when they have so many other things going on. But it is a big deal for us, because we want to get the best results we can.

Now, of all your suggestions there are a very small number I would implement myself if I was able to unilaterally rewrite the by-laws (and of course these have occurred to me before). There are also some parts of the process that could be sped up by automation (I've had neither the technical skill nor a mad-keen webmaster to get this happening). But on the whole, many of your suggestions either create more work than they remove or else fly in the face of our current reasons for sending teams to Olympiads at all. And even ignoring that I've seen nothing that provides evidence that you can do this stuff for "a few hours" each Olympiad year.

Denis_Jessop
08-06-2011, 09:51 PM
It's a bit bizarre seeing DC claiming to be able to do in a week what the ACF did in the last ten years.

There are some things that the ACF did that he couldn't do at all, for example competently drafting the amendments necessary to implement the proposed ACF Restructure. And does he suggest that all the time put into that project by Graeme Gardiner and Robert Jamieson as well could have been done by him in a flash.

Moreover, in the time referred to the ACF has run two Australian Opens (Mt Buller 2005 and Canberra 2007) after his attempt to run the 2005 one fell over in a twisted heap. That alone took about 4 weeks of tournaments and a lot of preparation time.

David, you must get real and face the facts and the real world for what they are rather than indulge in delusions about the matter. Then you may make some progress.

DJ

ER
08-06-2011, 10:00 PM
Man, you are seriously deluded if you believe that.

You're definitely deluded. No question.

Ditto.

David, you must get real and face the facts and the real world for what they are rather than indulge in delusions about the matter. Then you may make some progress.

Hey David I don't like your chances if they put this in an "is Guru deluded" poll!!!
:P :owned: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2011, 10:28 PM
I must admit, what David is saying here is very impressive. I agree with him totally.

Read my reply and see if you still agree with him totally and say why. I think you should have waited for my reply before judging.


Lets look at something similar: University.

University is not similar because the student is motivated overwhelmingly by self-interest and it is really not a big deal to the uni whether any given student passes or fails (unless perhaps they are a fee-paying student from overseas, which greatly compromises the standards you are talking about anyways.)

In the case of the Olympiad, the self-interest of players in attending the event varies but if there are stuff-ups then not only Australian chess but also the rest of the team can be harmed.

University is not a valid example.


Other examples from the real world:

1. If you apply for a passport you need to do the paperwork yourself and submit it. (the govt doesnt do it for you)

2. If you need to pay your electricity bill, you take the initiative to pay it (otherwise the electricity company disconnects it)

3. When your car registration is due, its up to you to pay it and then when they send you the new sticker, its up to you to put in onto your front windscreen (the govt doesnt send a guy around to your house to put the sticker on).

All invalid for the same reason. The government, the electricity company and the car registration board don't really care whether you get a passport or stuff up, don't really care whether you pay your electricity or get disconnected, and don't really care if your car is registered or pulled over by police. They put the process there but if you fail to use it then too bad, not their problem.

The ACF cares about whether its best players are able to go to Olympiads and cares that we are able to send full teams in fairness to all who do go. We also care about helping our players to reduce the expense.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 12:30 AM
More posts moved

This thread seems to be an unusually productive tangent generator. I have now moved all posts dealing exclusively with conflict of interest discussions to another new thread. Points about COI originally posted in posts currently numbered between 38 and 50 (until the next split!) have been left on this one but have also been quoted in post 6 of the new thread.

Also willing to move other stuff if requested.

Grant Szuveges
09-06-2011, 03:13 PM
Read my reply and see if you still agree with him totally and say why. I think you should have waited for my reply before judging.

The ACF cares about whether its best players are able to go to Olympiads and cares that we are able to send full teams in fairness to all who do go. We also care about helping our players to reduce the expense.

Kevin, your approach to this is certainly more friendly (more people friendly or more socialist you could say - Im not sure the best terminology for this), whereas David's is more efficient.

I can see advantages with both approaches. It all depends on what your ultimate aim is. If it is to send the best team to the Olympiad then your approach is less strict and probably better for the players themselves. If efficiency is your aim, then David's approach is better.

Both are ok - it just depends on your ultimate aim. I personally would be erring on the side of efficiency at this stage (because I am confident that the best players in Australia will get the admin side of it right if they have to). That said, I wouldnt be pedantic enough to let process override common sense if something exceptional came up.

MichaelBaron
09-06-2011, 03:25 PM
A funny debate is going on here. The funny part is that DC is mostly right when it comes to BPI (Business Process Implementation) - things can be done better in far easier ways. Of course, the selection process can be done online etc.

However, I agree that he is completely deluded. The delusion comes from the fact that he seriously expects ACF to be run like a business...and this would be good...but its not going to happen under current management.

Denis_Jessop
09-06-2011, 03:31 PM
A funny debate is going on here. The funny part is that DC is mostly right when it comes to BPI (Business Process Implementation) - things can be done better in far easier ways. Of course, the selection process can be done online etc.

However, I agree that he is completely deluded. The delusion comes from the fact that he seriously expects ACF to be run like a business...and this would be good...but its not going to happen under current management.

Why should the ACF (or any other organisation) be run like a business when it isn't a business? Cats don't run like dogs nor cars like ships or planes. :hmm:

DJ

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 03:32 PM
Kevin, your approach to this is certainly more friendly (more people friendly or more socialist you could say - Im not sure the best terminology for this), whereas David's is more efficient.

David isn't actually suggesting just one approach since some of his approaches are mutually inconsistent, eg he proposes abolishing applications but also proposes changing the application system. As I outlined, I don't believe David's approaches are that much more efficient overall since many of them create extra work, rely on external work plugins like Tornelo that require further development, or hide supposed inefficiency by outsourcing it in increased quantity to other volunteers.


It all depends on what your ultimate aim is. If it is to send the best team to the Olympiad then your approach is less strict and probably better for the players themselves. If efficiency is your aim, then David's approach is better.

And this is the key point here. The aims I have been aiming to fulfil are those stated by the ACF in the Olympiad by-law:


1. Objectives
The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there
are a number of other advantages as well.
a. Major Objectives
i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.
ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by
FIDE.

Improving efficiency is fine but not if it compromises or endangers the key aims. And many of David's suggestions clearly do by creating an increased chance that busy/disorganised players will miss out on selection or participation because of stuffups. That is false efficiency - it is putting making the process more efficient above making the process do what it is supposed to do.


I personally would be erring on the side of efficiency at this stage (because I am confident that the best players in Australia will get the admin side of it right if they have to).

Well, I've worked with them on this sort of stuff over the last several years so I know how it goes. Several of them will always get it right without any prodding from me. Quite a few, sad to say, are spectacularly disorganised and/or prone to fall out of the loop - and not just because I'll sometimes pick up after them (within reason). :lol:

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 03:39 PM
The funny part is that DC is mostly right when it comes to BPI (Business Process Implementation) - things can be done better in far easier ways. Of course, the selection process can be done online etc.

I don't care what jargon you wish to churn out here - if the process as implemented jeopardises its own aims, it's a failure. Not that I have any problem with having an online application form rather than applications by email (the AusJCL already does this) but the amount of time saved by that for the person running the selections is minimal.

Garrett
09-06-2011, 04:27 PM
* More structured process, set dates/rules and stick to them


Well said.



* Put responsibility for much more back onto players


Agreed



* Stick to the rules you set...if that means Rogers misses out on the team one year because he filled his form in wrong, too bad.


Agreed. Show some balls.




You're holding hands, babysitting them way too much. If they want to be on the team they can fill in the forms or miss out.


Good point.



Set deadlines and stick to them ...


I love it !



It sounds like you're dealing with a local entry to a club weekender, not an Olympiad team. Man, set some rules and stick by them...


Helleluja brother !!




If they miss out because they're lazy, tough.


you da messiah !




Failure to cast by deadline, removal of selector permanently from panel.


Agreed. Soft cox. Unprofessional soft cox.




No keeping tabs...just a structured process, someone doesn't comply they miss out.


I just had an accident in my pants. A happy one.

ChessGuru
09-06-2011, 08:28 PM
Ok, I admit that I'm being a bit 'larger-than-life' in order to illustrate a point. But you've got to make those sort of claims in order to get attention. Reality is probably 6 weeks not 1.

A lot of the change suggestions to fall over each other because of the assumed limitation of the exisiting structure. You can't really streamline ONE isolated process of the ACF without doing the same to everything...you're only ever as good as your weakest link.

The main point is to understand how to spend time:
a) INVEST IT
This is time spent creating a process which can be used and repeated again in the future (hence saving time later on).

b) SPEND TIME
This is where you just do something then next time you need to do it you do it again.

The Australian Open/Championships/Junior has been running every year for how many years...50, 60, 70, more? If someone on the ACF had once each year INVESTED a bit of time into processes then they could do 100x as much each year as they do now. But no, every year (usually around June) someone on the ACF sits up and says "Oh my gosh, there's an Aus *** event due in January - what should we do?" like it's a surprise or something!! :) Then people run around like headless chooks for a while (spending time), the tournament happens and everyone sighs with relief....only to have the same thing repeat the next year!

If you just INVEST a little bit of time each year then eventually you, me, anyone WILL be able to run the entire ACF current operations in week....

And just because the ACF isn't a business doesn't mean they shouldn't take the best practices, customer service ideas etc from business and apply them to the NFP sector.

ChessGuru
09-06-2011, 08:52 PM
DJ - think of the ACF as an amateur chess player. Although never intending to become a professional or become a GM you might still look through some GM games and use some of those ideas, opening moves or techniques.

I think this is basically what I have to offer the ACF - a year or two of INVESTING time and changing the culture of SPENDING....

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 10:07 PM
The Australian Open/Championships/Junior has been running every year for how many years...50, 60, 70, more? If someone on the ACF had once each year INVESTED a bit of time into processes then they could do 100x as much each year as they do now. But no, every year (usually around June) someone on the ACF sits up and says "Oh my gosh, there's an Aus *** event due in January - what should we do?" like it's a surprise or something!! :) Then people run around like headless chooks for a while (spending time), the tournament happens and everyone sighs with relief....only to have the same thing repeat the next year!

So how would you "invest" time to acceptably avoid this situation in a way that makes the ACF able to do 100x as much?

Then when we point out the problem with that suggestion you can upgrade the 6 weeks to 12 and then we can move on to another example and you can upgrade it to 18. :lol:


A lot of the change suggestions to fall over each other because of the assumed limitation of the exisiting structure. You can't really streamline ONE isolated process of the ACF without doing the same to everything...you're only ever as good as your weakest link.

But if you are giving an assessment of how long it would take you to conduct a particular role, and your plan involves an overhaul of a range of supporting structures, that's fine but you must include a fair portion of the time taken to overhaul those structures properly in your assessment for each task.


Ok, I admit that I'm being a bit 'larger-than-life' in order to illustrate a point. But you've got to make those sort of claims in order to get attention.

Which raises the question of whether you have to "get attention" in the first place and whether you are actually achieving what you want to achieve by so doing. Especially when the kind of attention you get is one that flags you as either deliberately exaggerating for effect (hence damaging the credibility of whatever you say in the future) or one that flags you as ignorant of the process you are proposing to reform.

For instance above you claim "they could do 100x as much each year". What should we read that "100x" as really meaning if we assume that it too is "a bit larger-than-life"? Ten times? Five? Three? 1.0000001?


Reality is probably 6 weeks not 1.

Reality is you don't really have the foggiest how long it would take. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 10:19 PM
DJ - think of the ACF as an amateur chess player. Although never intending to become a professional or become a GM you might still look through some GM games and use some of those ideas, opening moves or techniques.

Except that in this case the people you compare to GMs are playing a different game with very different objectives so what you propose is a bit like studying the Nimzo-Indian by watching a Viv Richards video.

Grant Szuveges
09-06-2011, 11:09 PM
Well, I've worked with them on this sort of stuff over the last several years so I know how it goes. Several of them will always get it right without any prodding from me. Quite a few, sad to say, are spectacularly disorganised and/or prone to fall out of the loop - and not just because I'll sometimes pick up after them (within reason). :lol:

Do we want such disorganised / incompetant people who cant get their paperwork in on time representing the country?

Or do we want well rounded, competant individuals who are good at everyday tasks and can follow instructions as well as being good chess players representing the country?

These people are representing all of us remember - they are representing the whole Australian chess scene.

Imagine that during the Olympiad, the Australian team go out and have dinner with the Peruvian team for example, but the Australian team dont have table manners for example, or dont know how to add up the bill, or dont know how to conduct conversation like a normal person etc.

The Peruvian team will simply think "well, if these are the absolute best of the Australian chess scene and they behave like this, then Id hate to know what the rest of Australia's chess players are like!" The Peruvian team may then go and chat to the Bolivian team and tell them about our uncivilised players. The word then spreads through to the Argentine and Chilean teams and the whole of the South American chess scene thinks that we are a bunch of uncivilised bogans.... etc etc etc....

I know that David Smerdon, Zhong Yuan Zhao, Darryl Johansen, Steven Solomon, Alex Wohl, Guy West, Nick Speck, Chris Depasquale etc (all players who have represented Australia in the Olympiad) are all well rounded people who can and do conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. I dont know who the "spectacularly disorganised" players that you are referring to are though Kevin - but hopefully they can manage good table manners when at dinner with the Peruvian team too if need be... because they are representing all of us...

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2011, 11:44 PM
Do we want such disorganised / incompetant people who cant get their paperwork in on time representing the country?

We want the best chessplayers representing the country. If they are so disorganised that they can't get an application in on time even when they have no valid reason to be late then they miss out - the line has to be drawn somewhere and if they're that disorganised they probably don't care - but a surprisingly large proportion of people will stuff up something like a passport application at some stage in their life, or commit to something major then realise that they cannot actually do it.


Imagine that during the Olympiad, the Australian team go out and have dinner with the Peruvian team for example, but the Australian team dont have table manners for example, or dont know how to add up the bill, or dont know how to conduct conversation like a normal person etc.

Hmmm, if you ask Michael Baron (or even if you don't ask him) he'll probably try to tell you all those things are normal chessplayer behaviour everywhere. Quite what you are getting at in implying a correlation between personal organisation and any form of social etiquette is way beyond me.

Our concern is with having strong players play for us, and with them achieving good chess results. If they enjoy and contribute well to the social experience that's a bonus but a very minor part of what "representing Australia" means to the Australian chess community. If anyone makes a completely uncivilised disgrace of themselves this is dealt with under the Code of Ethics.

I will tell you that there was a situation a few Olympiads back in which a leading male player - not too hard to work out who if you dig through the old threads - applied 21 hours late having simply failed to see the call for selections despite it being advertised three times in the ACF Newsletter during the previous 15 days, as well as on here. And this person, I can certainly vouch, is a well rounded person who conducts themselves in an appropriate manner socially (for what little that matters to anything being discussed.) Simply a busy time of year for them and it didn't occur to them that with Olympiad coming up they should be regularly checking their emails.

MichaelBaron
10-06-2011, 12:29 AM
Hmmm, if you ask Michael Baron (or even if you don't ask him) he'll probably try to tell you all those things are normal chessplayer behaviour everywhere. Quite what you are getting at in implying a correlation between personal organisation and any form of social etiquette is way beyond me.

Our concern is with having strong players play for us, and with them achieving good chess results. If they enjoy and contribute well to the social experience that's a bonus but a very minor part of what "representing Australia" means to the Australian chess community. If anyone makes a completely uncivilised disgrace of themselves this is dealt with under the Code of Ethics.

I will tell you that there was a situation a few Olympiads back in which a leading male player - not too hard to work out who if you dig through the old threads - applied 21 hours late having simply failed to see the call for selections despite it being advertised three times in the ACF Newsletter during the previous 15 days, as well as on here. And this person, I can certainly vouch, is a well rounded person who conducts themselves in an appropriate manner socially (for what little that matters to anything being discussed.) Simply a busy time of year for them and it didn't occur to them that with Olympiad coming up they should be regularly checking their emails.

Kevin, you read my mind - many chessplayers are indeed hopeless creatures. However, I think David's proposal is not about excluding those who apply late etc. - it is more about re-organising the application process in a more efficient way - and there are plenty of CMS to get the job done easily and cheaply :)

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2011, 01:14 AM
Kevin, you read my mind

Yes, I can do that even without agreeing with it. :owned:


However, I think David's proposal is not about excluding those who apply late etc.

David made numerous proposals that were not necessarily thematically unified. Being harsher on late applicants was among them. The current rule on late applications is:


5.8. Applications must be received before the advertised deadline. If an applicant is able to satisfy the Selections Director that circumstances beyond his or her control prevented the application being received before the deadline, then the application will also be considered. However, no application received more than seven days late will be considered unless the Selections Director is satisfied that the application was sent prior to the deadline.

It's a bit vague in that you can argue that technically a person with sufficient prescience could anticipate and avoid anything (eg if a player is knocked unconscious in a car crash on the day selections are due, they should have anticipated that that might happen and not driven anywhere before submitting their Olympiad application!). But I interpret it to mean that a player needs to have a genuine and reasonable reason based on an unusual set of circumstances to apply late, not a half-baked reason, not none at all. Following the incident I mentioned in reply to Grant I set up the back-up email list precisely to get rid of never-saw-the-call-for-selections type excuses.

ER
10-06-2011, 01:20 AM
We want the best chessplayers representing the country. If they are so disorganised that they can't get an application in on time even when they have no valid reason to be late then they miss out - the line has to be drawn somewhere and if they're that disorganised they probably don't care - but a surprisingly large proportion of people will stuff up something like a passport application at some stage in their life, or commit to something major then realise that they cannot actually do it.

I am organised, I have saved my traveling list and I tick the items before I travel

Camera / batteries
Toothbrush
Toothpaste
Perfume
Hair brush
Razor blades
shaving cream
talcum powder
deodorant
Face cream

undewear
pairs of socks
t-shirts
slippers

Wind cheater

Money
Keys
ID Cards
Bank Cards


Passport
Diary
Air fare Itineraries
Hotel booking vouchers
Pens
Umbrella
Reading books
Radio
Magnetic Chess Set
Mobile phone
Mobile phone battery charger
laptop
(Some other private thingies)

Can I apply for selection now? :P


Our concern is with having strong players play for us, and with them achieving good chess results. If they enjoy and contribute well to the social experience that's a bonus but a very minor part of what "representing Australia" means to the Australian chess community.

But then again I can't think of any other sport that the sportsmen / women have to apply to be a part of the national team.
All the Authorities have to do is to notify them that they are entitle to be selected, then ask them privately for their availability and them procede with the selection process!

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2011, 01:57 AM
Can I apply for selection now? :P

:lol: I'd be taking more than just a wind cheater for down here at the moment! Couple of days ago there was quite heavy snow down to a few hundred metres in the north-east, quite unusual this early in winter. Actually though, the forecast for the weekend and into next week is pretty good at the moment.


But then again I can't think of any other sport that the sportsmen / women have to apply to be a part of the national team.
All the Authorities have to do is to notify them that they are entitle to be selected, then ask them privately for their availability and them procede with the selection process!

I think for pro sports it's generally assumed that certain people will play if they can simply because of the $$$ involved, which makes it much easier. With chess the unavailability rate is higher, especially for the top females.

But many Olympic sports have selection trials that people have to enter into and compete to be selected. (Not a big fan of those for chess, they're a bit prone to throw up random surprises who may just be flash-in-the-pan.)

ER
10-06-2011, 02:09 AM
:lol: I'd be taking more than just a wind cheater for down here at the moment! Couple of days ago there was quite heavy snow down to a few hundred metres in the north-east, quite unusual this early in winter. Actually though, the forecast for the weekend and into next week is pretty good at the moment.

Hehe I know, my list applies only for items in the luggage!

Libby2
11-06-2011, 04:23 PM
But then again I can't think of any other sport that the sportsmen / women have to apply to be a part of the national team.
All the Authorities have to do is to notify them that they are entitle to be selected, then ask them privately for their availability and them procede with the selection process!

Other sports may not have to apply as such but almost all will have a formal process for qualification or selection. In some you may need to win a national title or trial. In others, selections are made based on performance in a national league, a national championship, or across a series of events.

Australian chess has certainly taken steps towards ensuring applicants at least have a level of activity to qualify for selection but there always seems to be a level of shilly-shallying about putting your name forward.

Given there is a cost in time (and almost always in money), it makes sense for players to at least indicate interest in selection. A lot of time can be wasted selecting people who don't want to (or can't) go. And a move towards the right people being approached with a whisper in their ear, to indicate their availability, only leads to the possible perception that X is asked ahead of Y or that K and L are a foregone conclusion etc.

How hard is it to apply if you actually want to do it?

PS - MANY MANY ticks to any suggestions on this thread that involve simplified, repeatable processes, consistent formats, clear criteria, online information, and online application processes etc Pay someone if you must. Not indefinitely, but to put together a "toolkit" that makes it possible for the ACF to function and communicate at a professional level. Even at a very simplistic level, it makes the workload of your volunteers (many or few) far less burdensome with the bonus that everyone can go off to find something new to complain about.

Grant Szuveges
11-06-2011, 07:51 PM
Other sports may not have to apply as such but almost all will have a formal process for qualification or selection. In some you may need to win a national title or trial. In others, selections are made based on performance in a national league, a national championship, or across a series of events.

Australian chess has certainly taken steps towards ensuring applicants at least have a level of activity to qualify for selection but there always seems to be a level of shilly-shallying about putting your name forward.

Given there is a cost in time (and almost always in money), it makes sense for players to at least indicate interest in selection. A lot of time can be wasted selecting people who don't want to (or can't) go. And a move towards the right people being approached with a whisper in their ear, to indicate their availability, only leads to the possible perception that X is asked ahead of Y or that K and L are a foregone conclusion etc.

How hard is it to apply if you actually want to do it?

PS - MANY MANY ticks to any suggestions on this thread that involve simplified, repeatable processes, consistent formats, clear criteria, online information, and online application processes etc Pay someone if you must. Not indefinitely, but to put together a "toolkit" that makes it possible for the ACF to function and communicate at a professional level. Even at a very simplistic level, it makes the workload of your volunteers (many or few) far less burdensome with the bonus that everyone can go off to find something new to complain about.

Libby2, Ive got absolutely no idea who you are (and thus no idea which side of chess politics you are on) but Id like to nominate your post for post of the month! This post contains a great deal of sense!

An interesting example from the first paragraph alluding to other sports was when Ian Thorpe accidently jumped into the pool too early and was disqualified from a qualification trial - and thus missed being selected. He got in anyway as the other bloke pulled out to "give him his place" but the swimming association (whatever they are called) were intent on following the proper process - quite rightly in my opinion.

antichrist
11-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Libby2, Ive got absolutely no idea who you are (and thus no idea which side of chess politics you are on) but Id like to nominate your post for post of the month! This post contains a great deal of sense!

An interesting example from the first paragraph alluding to other sports was when Ian Thorpe accidently jumped into the pool too early and was disqualified from a qualification trial - and thus missed being selected. He got in anyway as the other bloke pulled out to "give him his place" but the swimming association (whatever they are called) were intent on following the proper process - quite rightly in my opinion.

but that chap only gave way due to unfair public pressure, he would have been hated for life if he did not.

Some chess champs I know would not even know how to tie their shoe laces up to avoid tripping over them and have to be baby fed on everything.

Grant Szuveges
11-06-2011, 09:28 PM
[QUOTE=antichrist]but that chap only gave way due to unfair public pressure, he would have been hated for life if he did not.
QUOTE]

I meant "quite rightly" as in it was right of the association to follow process.

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2011, 10:36 PM
He got in anyway as the other bloke pulled out to "give him his place" but the swimming association (whatever they are called) were intent on following the proper process - quite rightly in my opinion.

They were right to keep following the process (indeed they had no choice) but the whole thing raises a lot of questions about the merit of using a single race to select.

Desmond
12-06-2011, 06:55 AM
An interesting example from the first paragraph alluding to other sports was when Ian Thorpe accidently jumped into the pool too early and was disqualified from a qualification trial - and thus missed being selected. He got in anyway as the other bloke pulled out to "give him his place" but the swimming association (whatever they are called) were intent on following the proper process - quite rightly in my opinion.I think it is quite different. In Thorpe's case he was eliminated during the qualifying competition. If he can make a false start there, then he can also do so in the big event.

It would be more analogous if a GM/strong IM performed badly in a qualifying competition; eg lost key games on time or something and that put their performance rating below the cut off. At least then we would be comparing one error in performance with another. Comparing one error in performance (Thorpe) with one error in pre-game, non-performance related form completion does not make much sense to me.

antichrist
12-06-2011, 09:44 AM
I think it is quite different. In Thorpe's case he was eliminated during the qualifying competition. If he can make a false start there, then he can also do so in the big event.

It would be more analogous if a GM/strong IM performed badly in a qualifying competition; eg lost key games on time or something and that put their performance rating below the cut off. At least then we would be comparing one error in performance with another. Comparing one error in performance (Thorpe) with one error in pre-game, non-performance related form completion does not make much sense to me.

I think you have them bambozzled here or yourself maybe. Thorpe did the one error in the game blundersize, losing games in a comp is truly bad form and should be considered seriously, whereas what Thorpe did is almost entirely understandable. And if you make one bad blunder in a game is serious whereas losing balance is understandable.

ElevatorEscapee
12-06-2011, 10:38 AM
I am organised, I have saved my traveling list and I tick the items before I travel

Camera / batteries
Toothbrush
Toothpaste
Perfume
Hair brush
Razor blades
shaving cream
talcum powder
deodorant
Face cream

undewear
pairs of socks
t-shirts
slippers

Wind cheater

Money
Keys
ID Cards
Bank Cards


Passport
Diary
Air fare Itineraries
Hotel booking vouchers
Pens
Umbrella
Reading books
Radio
Magnetic Chess Set
Mobile phone
Mobile phone battery charger
laptop
(Some other private thingies)

Can I apply for selection now? :P
...

Something seems to be missing... uh-oh, JAK's forgotten to wear pants to his next tournament! :eek:

Rincewind
12-06-2011, 10:47 AM
Something seems to be missing... uh-oh, JAK's forgotten to wear pants to his next tournament! :eek:

What makes you think that was an oversight? :P

ER
12-06-2011, 05:32 PM
Something seems to be missing... uh-oh, JAK's forgotten to wear pants to his next tournament! :eek:

I said in the luggage you silly gook! :P I wouldn't need more than a pair of jeans for a trhee day trip to Tassie would I? :owned: then again with all them flight cancellations I might have to think twice! :P

Oepty
12-06-2011, 08:38 PM
I said in the luggage you silly gook! :P I wouldn't need more than a pair of jeans for a trhee day trip to Tassie would I? :owned: then again with all them flight cancellations I might have to think twice! :P

You are a braver man than me to travel without some spare pants. I would probably drop a plate of food on mine and make them unwearable.
Scott

ER
18-06-2011, 12:34 AM
What makes you think that was an oversight? :P

well maybe he wasn't looking at (original edited with a stern warning by the household censor) the ... right place !

ER
18-06-2011, 12:42 AM
Other sports may not have to apply as such but almost all will have a formal process for qualification or selection. In some you may need to win a national title or trial. In others, selections are made based on performance in a national league, a national championship, or across a series of events.

Australian chess has certainly taken steps towards ensuring applicants at least have a level of activity to qualify for selection but there always seems to be a level of shilly-shallying about putting your name forward.

Given there is a cost in time (and almost always in money), it makes sense for players to at least indicate interest in selection. A lot of time can be wasted selecting people who don't want to (or can't) go. And a move towards the right people being approached with a whisper in their ear, to indicate their availability, only leads to the possible perception that X is asked ahead of Y or that K and L are a foregone conclusion etc.

How hard is it to apply if you actually want to do it?

PS - MANY MANY ticks to any suggestions on this thread that involve simplified, repeatable processes, consistent formats, clear criteria, online information, and online application processes etc Pay someone if you must. Not indefinitely, but to put together a "toolkit" that makes it possible for the ACF to function and communicate at a professional level. Even at a very simplistic level, it makes the workload of your volunteers (many or few) far less burdensome with the bonus that everyone can go off to find something new to complain about.

Hi Libby :) I was only trying to suggest a way to avoid beaurocracy. I mean, imagine Darryl or David and/or other members, having to fill application forms providing their CV and recent performances' results to prove that they are eligible for inclusion in the Aus Olympic team! :)


Libby2, Ive got absolutely no idea who you are (and thus no idea which side of chess politics you are on) but Id like to nominate your post for post of the month! This post contains a great deal of sense!

Libby is a legend in Australian Chess Administration. Juniors in ACT worship her and she is still provide all help she can manage despite having officially "retired"!


An interesting example from the first paragraph alluding to other sports was when Ian Thorpe accidently jumped into the pool too early and was disqualified from a qualification trial - and thus missed being selected. He got in anyway as the other bloke pulled out to "give him his place" but the swimming association (whatever they are called) were intent on following the proper process - quite rightly in my opinion.

Sounds cute but imagine yourself playing an important qualification match and beating your opponent only to find some mongrels from the Association (whatever it's called) pressurising you to give him your place (rightly or non rightly so) because he lost his queen by a silly mistake and after all he was a star and you were an unknown. Anyway, this story stinks and we haven't heard the last word from Craig Stevens yet!

Adamski
18-06-2011, 01:35 AM
This thread is now quite an interesting read. But it has strayed miles away from On The Move and IMHO should be renamed. E.g. "ACF Executive Roles discussion". Perhaps athread split.

Good morning everyone and as C U would say, carry on! You are doing very well...

ER
18-06-2011, 07:40 AM
This thread is now quite an interesting read. But it has strayed miles away from On The Move and IMHO should be renamed. E.g. "ACF Executive Roles discussion". Perhaps athread split.

Good morning everyone and as C U would say, carry on! You are doing very well...

Indeed, I wonder who started the straying motion first! :lol:

Denis_Jessop
18-06-2011, 05:44 PM
Indeed, I wonder who started the straying motion first! :lol:

i don't know but, if we like sheep have gone astray, that person must be a born leader. :D :hmm:

DJ

ER
18-06-2011, 06:24 PM
i don't know but, if we like sheep have gone astray, that person must be a born leader. :D :hmm:

DJ

Classic! :lol:

Oepty
18-06-2011, 06:54 PM
i don't know but, if we like sheep have gone astray, that person must be a born leader. :D :hmm:

DJ

Sheep don't need a leader to go astray.
Scott

Adamski
18-06-2011, 08:00 PM
This thread is now quite an interesting read. But it has strayed miles away from On The Move and IMHO should be renamed. E.g. "ACF Executive Roles discussion". Perhaps athread split.

Good morning everyone and as C U would say, carry on! You are doing very well...
I see a Mod has changed the thread title. Probably Kevin. Thanks!

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2011, 08:49 PM
Yes and I might give it yet another thread split soon by removing all the recent fluff! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2011, 06:58 PM
Well, firstly that's assuming there was a contest at all. Suppose there was someone who was reasonably young but reliable, enthusiastic, with a record of getting stuff done as opposed to just waffling, complaining or promising and not delivering. Suppose further that such a person did not have an obviously massive conflict of interest that would make it hard to do their job properly. If such a person was interested in an ACF Exec position they may well be able to find an incumbent happy to let them take over, quite likely unopposed.

I have reason to suspect that this comment from a few months ago might have been misinterpreted (although I am not sure if this is the case or not). Anyway I was not suggesting that anyone would, should or is likely to resign mid-term to let someone else fill their position. After all those elected at the Conference have a mandate to fill that role for two years and should not, in my view, step down mid-term in favour of someone lacking that mandate. Having made commitments, in my view, people should only typically resign mid-term should they become unable to comfortably do the job they were elected to. What I was referring to is a situation where it becomes known that someone is interested in a position in the leadup to the next Conference - in this case 2013.

Santa
07-08-2011, 02:27 AM
... The elected office bearers have a vote on the Council but so do 7 State and Territory delegates, ....

DJ

Can you clarigy something for me?
According to the ACF Constitution, "j. The number of persons a State Association may appoint to represent it at a
National Conference shall be based on the total population of the state
according to the most recent federal government statistic recognised by the
Council and shall be one representative per million or part thereof."

Let us assume that this http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 is accepted by the ACF, then the states and territories should be entitled to 26 delegates.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2011, 02:40 AM
Let us assume that this http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 is accepted by the ACF, then the states and territories should be entitled to 26 delegates.

Denis was talking about the ACF Council and you are talking about the ACF National Conference. These are distinct entities.

The National Conference meets once a year only and it is the latter which 26 delegates may attend (it would be 27 but NT is not currently affiliated). The Council meets four times a year in person or by phone hookup (note to whingers: cost has been greatly reduced!) and also considers business by email whenever necessary.

The Council includes an Executive of six members, plus one Delegate from each affiliated State or Territory.

The National Conference has particular powers and duties as discussed in the ACF Constitution at http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/ACF_Constitution_post_6.1.05.txt . These days, holding elections and considering changes to the ACF Constitution are its most common functions.