PDA

View Full Version : Allowing overseas entries in Aus Champs (and proposed changes) sf Aus Champs 2012



Kerry Stead
10-11-2011, 01:15 PM
Is it just me, or does the addition of GM Li Chao from China mean that results (as far as the Australian Champion title) may become distorted, and not necessarily a true indication of the best Australian player in the title event??

Also, being an Olympiad year, will the 'unofficial' rule of the Australian Champion automatically getting a place on the Olympiad team still apply??

Just to clarify, I have no issue with GM Chao, but shouldn't his participation be welcomed in the OPEN (next year) rather than the Championship?

jfks123
10-11-2011, 02:29 PM
Is it just me, or does the addition of GM Li Chao from China mean that results (as far as the Australian Champion title) may become distorted, and not necessarily a true indication of the best Australian player in the title event??

Also, being an Olympiad year, will the 'unofficial' rule of the Australian Champion automatically getting a place on the Olympiad team still apply??

Just to clarify, I have no issue with GM Chao, but shouldn't his participation be welcomed in the OPEN (next year) rather than the Championship?
why wouldnt this tourney give a true indication of the best australian player?(just get the highest finishing aussie)
i think its great for australians to experience playing a 2700, but some aussies may feel robbed of opportunities, prizemoney etc. just like the british did until they banned foreigners from playing.

Vlad
10-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Is it just me, or does the addition of GM Li Chao from China mean that results (as far as the Australian Champion title) may become distorted, and not necessarily a true indication of the best Australian player in the title event??




Kerry, you keep making the same point over and over again. If you ask strong players - the majourity of them will strongly prefer Li Chao playing in the championship. If you look at the history, in the previous few championships there were pretty strong grandmasters from overseas playing.



Just to clarify, I have no issue with GM Chao, but shouldn't his participation be welcomed in the OPEN (next year) rather than the Championship


There is no difference between the championship and the open in terms of foreigners playing. The difference is whether you are allowed to play (or more specifically players with ELO less than 2150), not whether foreigners can play.

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2011, 08:36 PM
Also, being an Olympiad year, will the 'unofficial' rule of the Australian Champion automatically getting a place on the Olympiad team still apply??

That's up to the selectors. Actually I think empirical evidence for the existence of this so-called unofficial rule is a bit scanty - it's been so long since there was an Australian Champion who clearly wouldn't have been selected for the Olympiad otherwise.

The tournament is long enough to pick a worthy champion (or worthy contestants for a playoff) even if first place is won by someone from overseas. We saw this in 2008 when Solomon was Australian Champion finishing =2nd behind Antic who was ineligible. Overseas players taking the prizes is a potential issue but there have been no complaints to the ACF about it in previous years so I surmise that Vlad is correct and strong Australian players generally either consider the benefits of having a few strong OS GMs in the event to balance or outweigh the disadvantages or else don't care.

Ian_Rogers
10-11-2011, 11:53 PM
There is no difference between the championship and the open in terms of foreigners playing. The difference is whether you are allowed to play (or more specifically players with ELO less than 2150), not whether foreigners can play.

I think Vlad is wrong about this -each foreigner who wishes to compete in a Championship must get ACF or organiser approval. I don't think more than four non-residents have ever been allowed in a Championship.

Vlad
11-11-2011, 12:42 AM
Wrong about what? I have seen a letter written by ACF which was stating exactly what I said.

Sorry Ian, I can't see the logics in the above sentence. Do you know recent examples when more than 4 strong players were applying and some of them were not allowed into the championship?

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2011, 12:42 AM
I think Vlad is wrong about this -each foreigner who wishes to compete in a Championship must get ACF or organiser approval.

When the By-Laws are applied without changes then the four highest-rated foreigners meeting certain criteria are admitted without needing approval. The criteria are that the player must be rated >2250 FIDE and must either be a New Zealander or have played 20+ ACF-rated games in the past two years.
The only discretion on admitting such players is that the ACF can rule a player to be overrated by FIDE and thus reject them.

Apart from that the ACF can admit one otherwise ineligible player under "exceptional circumstances". (That rule is usually used to avoid the bye rather than let foreigners in, though having to avoid a bye is hardly an exceptional circumstance!)

However for various reasons (including some serious problems with providing advance certainty to overseas applicants under this By-Law as well as the desire to admit strong OS GMs) the ACF has chosen to delegate all decisions on admitting overseas players to the Aus Champs selection committee, thus overriding the By-Laws. This has also happened in other recent years and the By-Law for admitting foreign players is likely to be reviewed.

In theory any number could be admitted but in practice we won't open the floodgates!

Agent Smith
11-11-2011, 06:36 AM
I think Vlad is wrong about this -each foreigner who wishes to compete in a Championship must get ACF or organiser approval. I don't think more than four non-residents have ever been allowed in a Championship.
So - deciphering KB's summation - what Ian says is correct.

But i have a hunch most people would prefer that the "Australian Championship" was won by an Australian. It seems strange the the title of "Australian Champion" could go to someone who is for all purposes a tourist.

I suppose in the past this has not been a major concern, but GM Chao Li's very high rating (meaning he is basically a shoe-in) may cause some reassessment of the whole invitation thing. My 2 cents is - It's not a golf tournament. A visiting 2700 player is going to win. What's the fun in that ? :hmm: Maybe a pointless Poll is in order ? :P

Solo
11-11-2011, 08:35 AM
I don't mind the strong GMs playing, as long as there are not too many and they don't take away places of players at the bottom end who would like to play. That's the main reason we cannot be inundated with them for the champs, but can for the Open. The Champs has always been restricted to something between 32 to 38. Lajos Steiner played in a couple in the past and Dejan Antic won the one in 2008 and Gawain Jones played last time. They increase the chances of norms also. I don't think Li Chao would be a shoe in and our own ZYZ is nearly as strong!

Garvinator
11-11-2011, 10:43 AM
I don't mind the strong GMs playing, as long as there are not too many and they don't take away places of players at the bottom end who would like to play. That's the main reason we cannot be inundated with them for the champs, but can for the Open. The Champs has always been restricted to something between 32 to 38.
Hey Solo, The Aus Champs does not have a maximum rating number cap, but is open to all Aus Federation players with a rating above ACF 2150, plus state champions and various other qualifying spots. So the total number that enter every second year could be either 10 or 50. It just happens that the numbers are about the same each time the Aus Champs is held.

Garvinator
11-11-2011, 10:44 AM
In theory any number could be admitted but in practice we won't open the floodgates!It would be fantastic if we were in a position to have to consider closing the floodgates ;)

Ian Rout
11-11-2011, 01:31 PM
Two points with having highly-rated overseas players are that it improves the chances of players scoring norms, and that far from distorting the competition it may in fact make it more accurate - if a handful of local players are clearly ahead of the field and are playing what amounts to a four-player round-robin with seven cheap points then making it an eight-player competition is a better test.

Other people may have different views but I personally don't care if the Australian Champion hasn't come outright first, so long as there aren't so many strong overseas players that the top local is the one who avoids playing most of them. To the extent that it would be nice to see a local win outright it would be nicer to see them testing themselves against top GMs.

MichaelBaron
13-11-2011, 12:49 PM
. My 2 cents is - It's not a golf tournament. A visiting 2700 player is going to win. What's the fun in that ? :hmm: Maybe a pointless Poll is in order ? :P
The fun is that Australians will get a chance to learn and to improve. So next time a 2700 comes they are more competitive.

Denis_Jessop
13-11-2011, 04:28 PM
So - deciphering KB's summation - what Ian says is correct.

But i have a hunch most people would prefer that the "Australian Championship" was won by an Australian. It seems strange the the title of "Australian Champion" could go to someone who is for all purposes a tourist.

I suppose in the past this has not been a major concern, but GM Chao Li's very high rating (meaning he is basically a shoe-in) may cause some reassessment of the whole invitation thing. My 2 cents is - It's not a golf tournament. A visiting 2700 player is going to win. What's the fun in that ? :hmm: Maybe a pointless Poll is in order ? :P

Only an Australian citizen or permanent resident is eligible to hold a title other than in an open event. So the "Australian Champion" must be either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident.

DJ

machomortensen
13-11-2011, 06:27 PM
The fun is that Australians will get a chance to learn and to improve. So next time a 2700 comes they are more competitive.

I would any day prefer to play against such one...

Many years ago I could/"should" have met Korchnoi in the first of Copenhagen Open. A last minute change gave me the danísh grandmaster Sune Berg Hansen which is more or less similar to kiss my sister... We were teammates and had played each other several times before...

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2011, 10:48 PM
But i have a hunch most people would prefer that the "Australian Championship" was won by an Australian. It seems strange the the title of "Australian Champion" could go to someone who is for all purposes a tourist.

It can't. The "tourists" are ineligible. If an OS player wins the tournament then an Australian in outright second place will get the title Australian Champion. As I mentioned before in 2008, we had an ineligible player first and another =2nd, so the Australian in =2nd (Solomon) won the title.

I'd also like to echo what Garvin said. There is no set field size or numbers limit for the Australian Championships. It is amazing how often people think there is despite that myth being repeatedly disposed of. The field is simply the number of entrants who meet the objective criteria or are deemed to meet the subjective ones, or otherwise admitted. Field size is not a criterion in making these decisions.


It would be fantastic if we were in a position to have to consider closing the floodgates

I think we sort-of are, actually. My impression is that if the entry requirements did not ward off many OS players and subject others to sometimes lengthy approval delays, we would be seeing a lot more than four taking advantage.

doubleroo
24-11-2011, 11:53 PM
There has been some speculation as to the opinion of stronger Australian players to the addition of strong tourists. Immodestly I will include myself in this group and give my opinion.

The Australian Championship is a Bi-Annual event intended to determine who the best Australian Chess player is. Only Australians should be eligible. We have an Open every other year.

To you cynics who say I am mainly concerned about the money...of course!!

Santa
26-11-2011, 03:49 AM
So - deciphering KB's summation - what Ian says is correct.

But i have a hunch most people would prefer that the "Australian Championship" was won by an Australian. It seems strange the the title of "Australian Champion" could go to someone who is for all purposes a tourist.

I suppose in the past this has not been a major concern, but GM Chao Li's very high rating (meaning he is basically a shoe-in) may cause some reassessment of the whole invitation thing. My 2 cents is - It's not a golf tournament. A visiting 2700 player is going to win. What's the fun in that ? :hmm: Maybe a pointless Poll is in order ? :P

A strong GM is no certainty to win the tournament, and there are sufficient rounds that, ordinarily, a clear Australian will emerge to claim the title (and be accepted as a fair winner), if not first place.

One of the requirements for IM and GM norms is to encounter foreign players. You also need to score against strong players, and there is easier if there are more strong players to score against.

A weak IM or GM is good value; Sarapu (NZ) was, in the 90s.

Are you playing, Steven?

Santa
26-11-2011, 03:52 AM
Hey Solo, The Aus Champs does not have a maximum rating number cap, but is open to all Aus Federation players with a rating above ACF 2150, plus state champions and various other qualifying spots. So the total number that enter every second year could be either 10 or 50. It just happens that the numbers are about the same each time the Aus Champs is held.


They change the floor. In previous years, the minimum rating was not so high. In previous years, we had but one GM in the Olympiad team; now the day is in sight when we will be able to field a team of GMs.

Kerry Stead
26-11-2011, 11:34 AM
One of the requirements for IM and GM norms is to encounter foreign players. You also need to score against strong players, and there is easier if there are more strong players to score against.
The foreign player requirement is not necessary for norms in the Australian Championship.
FIDE allow countries to nominate one event per year which does not need to meet this requirement, and Australia, as with many other countries, selects the national championship as this tournament.

Ian Rout
26-11-2011, 02:13 PM
The foreign player requirement is not necessary for norms in the Australian Championship.
FIDE allow countries to nominate one event per year which does not need to meet this requirement, and Australia, as with many other countries, selects the national championship as this tournament.
This is true, but the rating and titled opponent requirements still apply.

Denis_Jessop
26-11-2011, 04:24 PM
They change the floor. In previous years, the minimum rating was not so high. In previous years, we had but one GM in the Olympiad team; now the day is in sight when we will be able to field a team of GMs.

I'm not sure who the"they" are or to what floor you refer. But, if you are referring to the Australian Championships, the minimum rating requirement was last altered when there was a substantial upgrade to the ACF ratings about 10 years ago. As for GMs in the Olympiad Team, we had 2 (Rogers and Johansen) for many years and they were our only 2. We now have more but that has nothing to do with rating changes.

DJ

Agent Smith
26-11-2011, 08:07 PM
A strong GM is no certainty to win the tournament, and there are sufficient rounds that, ordinarily, a clear Australian will emerge to claim the title (and be accepted as a fair winner), if not first place.

One of the requirements for IM and GM norms is to encounter foreign players. You also need to score against strong players, and there is easier if there are more strong players to score against.

A weak IM or GM is good value; Sarapu (NZ) was, in the 90s.

Are you playing, Steven?
Haha. Can i bring my macbook ;) :hmm: :whistle:
Speaking as an average aussie sports fan... i'd like to see an all aus tussle. It's not just about who'll win.
But i can appreciate players getting revved up to take on a world class opponent.

Santa
27-11-2011, 12:14 AM
I'm not sure who the"they" are or to what floor you refer. But, if you are referring to the Australian Championships, the minimum rating requirement was last altered when there was a substantial upgrade to the ACF ratings about 10 years ago. As for GMs in the Olympiad Team, we had 2 (Rogers and Johansen) for many years and they were our only 2. We now have more but that has nothing to do with rating changes.

DJ

I was an assistant arbiter at on Australian Championship, and that time we had but on GM, and he didn't participate. And the floor was lower. T Tao had a fairly good result despite his thinking he wasn't good enough.

Santa
27-11-2011, 12:16 AM
Haha. Can i bring my macbook ;) :hmm: :whistle:
Speaking as an average aussie sports fan... i'd like to see an all aus tussle. It's not just about who'll win.
But i can appreciate players getting revved up to take on a world class opponent.

There's always the reserves.


I'll have my laptop, so I suppose you can bring yours.

Santa
15-12-2011, 06:07 PM
When the By-Laws are applied without changes then the four highest-rated foreigners meeting certain criteria are admitted without needing approval. The criteria are that the player must be rated >2250 FIDE and must either be a New Zealander or have played 20+ ACF-rated games in the past two years.
The only discretion on admitting such players is that the ACF can rule a player to be overrated by FIDE and thus reject them.

Apart from that the ACF can admit one otherwise ineligible player under "exceptional circumstances". (That rule is usually used to avoid the bye rather than let foreigners in, though having to avoid a bye is hardly an exceptional circumstance!)

However for various reasons (including some serious problems with providing advance certainty to overseas applicants under this By-Law as well as the desire to admit strong OS GMs) the ACF has chosen to delegate all decisions on admitting overseas players to the Aus Champs selection committee, thus overriding the By-Laws. This has also happened in other recent years and the By-Law for admitting foreign players is likely to be reviewed.

In theory any number could be admitted but in practice we won't open the floodgates!

The first part of this, I beleive, is likely to be applied to people who've arrived in Australia recently, who intend to stay but are not yet registered by FIDE as Australian.

Think of almost any Australian with a Russian accent. At some point they may have played under this rule.

And then other entrants may be allowed to improve chances of a norm for Australian players.

However, special entrants might win the tournament, but the title goes to the best-performing Australian. Since there are so many rounds, you can expect to see pairings between players with quite different scores later in the tournament. With fewer than 33 players, after five rounds there cannot be more than one player on a perfect score. In eleven rounds, all significant contenders for the tile should have met;)

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2011, 09:44 PM
The first part of this, I beleive, is likely to be applied to people who've arrived in Australia recently, who intend to stay but are not yet registered by FIDE as Australian.

Registration by FIDE as Australian or otherwise is not relevant to any part of the entry criteria. There are quite a few strong Australian players who would be citizens or permanent residents but are registered to other federations because they have not changed their original federation (and FIDE hasn't forced them to).

antichrist
16-12-2011, 12:53 AM
Registration by FIDE as Australian or otherwise is not relevant to any part of the entry criteria. There are quite a few strong Australian players who would be citizens or permanent residents but are registered to other federations because they have not changed their original federation (and FIDE hasn't forced them to).

it is not like NSW road rules where you must register your car in state you live after 6 weeks

Jesper Norgaard
16-12-2011, 08:13 AM
it is not like NSW road rules where you must register your car in state you live after 6 weeks

Wouldn't it rather be "before/within 6 weeks"? If you do it after 36 years, it would still be after 6 weeks.

Sheroff
16-12-2011, 08:57 AM
The presumption than a visiting 2700 Chinese GM is a shoe-in is not necessarily borne out by history. I recall the first major Australian tournament I ever played in (the Ballarat Australian Open 1984/85), when GM Pal Benko flew in from the States and played, and was expected to 'clean up'. Benko was beaten by Queensland Champ at the time Bruce Holiday (rated around 1900 or so at the time I think), was lucky to draw with me, drew with (from memory - this is going back a way!) Craig Laird as well, and didn't even really finish in the running. Aussie Guy West won the event in fine style. High-rating GMs should not be feared, but welcomed - we can all use their rating points....:cool:

Cheers,

Kevin Casey

ER
16-12-2011, 10:06 AM
The presumption than a visiting 2700 Chinese GM is a shoe-in is not necessarily borne out by history. I recall the first major Australian tournament I ever played in (the Ballarat Australian Open 1984/85), when GM Pal Benko flew in from the States and played, and was expected to 'clean up'. Benko was beaten by Queensland Champ at the time Bruce Holiday (rated around 1900 or so at the time I think), was lucky to draw with me, drew with (from memory - this is going back a way!) Craig Laird as well, and didn't even really finish in the running. Aussie Guy West won the event in fine style. High-rating GMs should not be feared, but welcomed - we can all use their rating points....:cool:

Cheers,

Kevin Casey

What a great piece of Aus Chess History! :clap: Thanks Kevin!

Rincewind
16-12-2011, 10:25 AM
The presumption than a visiting 2700 Chinese GM is a shoe-in is not necessarily borne out by history. I recall the first major Australian tournament I ever played in (the Ballarat Australian Open 1984/85), when GM Pal Benko flew in from the States and played, and was expected to 'clean up'. Benko was beaten by Queensland Champ at the time Bruce Holiday (rated around 1900 or so at the time I think), was lucky to draw with me, drew with (from memory - this is going back a way!) Craig Laird as well, and didn't even really finish in the running. Aussie Guy West won the event in fine style. High-rating GMs should not be feared, but welcomed - we can all use their rating points....:cool:

Nice anecdote Kevin but as that was an Open and not championship not sure how much is in there other than the sentiment to welcome overseas GMs, which I agree with. However we also need to be realistic as to prospects and there is no evidence that Australians are all that underrated as evidenced by our performance at olympiads which is pretty much in line with ratings and also the numerous overseas winners of the Australian Open such as

1971 Portisch
1987 Sax
1991 Oll, Kengis and Miles (with D. Johansen :clap:)
1995 Trong
1999 Milov
2005 Sedina

ER
16-12-2011, 11:17 AM
... and there is no evidence that Australians are all that underrated as evidenced by our performance at olympiads ...

and, let me add, by performances such as that of our own U12 World Champion Bobby Cheng! :clap:

Denis_Jessop
16-12-2011, 11:52 AM
Nice anecdote Kevin but as that was an Open and not championship not sure how much is in there other than the sentiment to welcome overseas GMs, which I agree with. However we also need to be realistic as to prospects and there is no evidence that Australians are all that underrated as evidenced by our performance at olympiads which is pretty much in line with ratings and also the numerous overseas winners of the Australian Open such as

1971 Portisch
1987 Sax
1991 Oll, Kengis and Miles (with D. Johansen :clap:)
1995 Trong
1999 Milov
2005 Sedina

To that add Stefan Djuric 2001.

DJ

Sheroff
16-12-2011, 11:56 AM
My own experience, playing in the US and in Australia, is that Aussie ratings seem to be pretty much on par with those in most of the world, while Yank ratings (at least 20 years ago when I was playing there) were rather bloated (maybe 100-200 points higher than the equivalent in other places). Not sure if this is still the case today. In my twenties I was able to achieve a USCF (as opposed to FIDE) rating of 2335 (not bad for a pure tactical bamboozler who can't really play endgames:eek: ), a rating I haven't come close to here (I think @2170 was about my highest in Australia).

Rincewind
16-12-2011, 01:30 PM
To that add Stefan Djuric 2001.

Sorry. I missed Djuric as his country is not indicated in the same way as the other OS winners here: http://www.auschess.org.au/acfrec.htm :)

Rincewind
16-12-2011, 02:01 PM
My own experience, playing in the US and in Australia, is that Aussie ratings seem to be pretty much on par with those in most of the world, while Yank ratings (at least 20 years ago when I was playing there) were rather bloated (maybe 100-200 points higher than the equivalent in other places). Not sure if this is still the case today. In my twenties I was able to achieve a USCF (as opposed to FIDE) rating of 2335 (not bad for a pure tactical bamboozler who can't really play endgames:eek: ), a rating I haven't come close to here (I think @2170 was about my highest in Australia).

A cynic would propose to discover countries with inflated ratings and target strong players from these countries with invitations to play in Australian events. Of course the net effect would a knock on bloating of Australian ratings. :)

Brian_Jones
17-12-2011, 07:33 AM
In my view, Australia should hold one annual event that determines the official Australian Champion. It should only accept entries from Australian registered players and should be prestigious (eg sponsored and historically significant).

There are many other "international" tournaments held during the year to give FIDE norm opportunities.

So, in summary, I recommend that:

1. The Australian Championship is restricted to Australian players;
2. It is held every year (not alternate years);
3. It is promoted to attract sponsors.

Does anybody else agree with this recommendation?

antichrist
17-12-2011, 07:38 AM
In my view, Australia should hold one annual event that determines the official Australian Champion. It should only accept entries from Australian registered players and should be prestigious (eg sponsored and historically significant).

There are many other "international" tournaments held during the year to give FIDE norm opportunities.

So, in summary, I recommend that:

1. The Australian Championship is restricted to Australian players;
2. It is held every year (not alternate years);
3. It is promoted to attract sponsors.

Does anybody else agree with this recommendation?

Yes, due to changing circumstances of more Australian players achieving Grand Master status and master level. There could still be valuable rating points to pick up even without norms.

Definitely every year as all other national championships are I believe.

And of course it should be promoted to attract sponsors. I actually refused generous sponsors when I organised a tournament.

Sheroff
17-12-2011, 02:58 PM
Makes sense, Brian.

ChessGuru
23-12-2011, 04:27 PM
I agree... maybe Tornelo could be the first sponsor. :)

Agent Smith
23-12-2011, 04:44 PM
The current situation is fairly confusing, and probably detracts from prestige and sponsorship opportunities.

Denis_Jessop
23-12-2011, 06:59 PM
The current situation is fairly confusing, and probably detracts from prestige and sponsorship opportunities.

As prestige/sponsorship in Australian chess tournaments seems to ride on the number of visiting titled players, especially GMs we have - cf Doeberl Cup, SIO - I don't see how restricting the Australian Championship (annual) to Australian players is going to do much for the cause. A pre-requisite may also be that the event is always held in Sydney, having regard to recent experience.

DJ

Agent Smith
24-12-2011, 03:14 PM
As prestige/sponsorship in Australian chess tournaments seems to ride on the number of visiting titled players
That's your opinion. Perhaps you're right. ;) But really, i can't see much interest in visiting players from outside the chess community. The greater australian public is very unknowledgeable about international chess.

A yearly Australian championship for Aus players only would attract much more local media.

What we have at the moment is too confusing. "Well - this tournament is held every second year to determine the best player, except foreign players can compete but not 'win' and don't confuse it with the austalian open which has a very similar name but ... blah, blah ...".

[general public / local newspaper journalist loses interest, inserts story about american football instead.]

Denis_Jessop
24-12-2011, 03:37 PM
That's your opinion. Perhaps you're right. ;) But really, i can't see much interest in visiting players from outside the chess community. The greater australian public is very unknowledgeable about international chess.

A yearly Australian championship for Aus players only would attract much more local media.

What we have at the moment is too confusing. "Well - this tournament is held every second year to determine the best player, except foreign players can compete but not 'win' and don't confuse it with the austalian open which has a very similar name but ... blah, blah ...".

[general public / local newspaper journalist loses interest, inserts story about american football instead.]

With the greatest respect, you misjudge the interest of the Australian general public in competitive chess. It is minus nil unless two schoolboys get thrown out of school for playing chess or, perhaps, a school pupil wins a world title. The former will attract (and has attracted) much more attention than the latter.

The idea that the local media or, more importantly, sponsors, would find a yearly competition for Australian players only seems to me, in the light of experience, to be misconceived.

It must not be assumed that chess administrators have not looked at this whole matter. They have, several times over the years, and there are many problems with Brian's idea (not new by the way) that he seems to pass over or assume not to be a problem.

I'm afraid I am puzzled that you find the present situation confusing. What is confusing about the concept of a Closed Championship and an Open Championship in alternate years. Surely that can't be beyond the comprehension of a person who can play chess :)

DJ

antichrist
24-12-2011, 03:53 PM
Denis, the trouble is that if you scratch an Aussie they want a beer. How can you introduce a thinking game into those that just want to blow their brains. I noticed that the Ukrainians could still play decent chess whilst on vodka

Agent Smith
24-12-2011, 04:03 PM
What is confusing about the concept of a Closed Championship and an Open Championship in alternate years.

Hell, i have to go to wikipedia just to get the names right.:P

Denis_Jessop
24-12-2011, 06:44 PM
Hell, i have to go to wikipedia just to get the names right.:P

1 + 1 = 2, so I am led to believe. but it's very confusing as the two 1 s may be different and the 2 may not always be the same one. :D

DJ

Rincewind
24-12-2011, 09:44 PM
1 + 1 = 2, so I am led to believe.

But 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.

Max Illingworth
24-12-2011, 09:57 PM
But 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.

A forest where only one will emerge the winner...

Returning to the subject, I don't see why overseas entries that meet the criteria for participation in the Australian Championships shouldn't be allowed to play.

Agent Smith
24-12-2011, 10:22 PM
In my view, Australia should hold one annual event that determines the official Australian Champion. It should only accept entries from Australian registered players and should be prestigious (eg sponsored and historically significant).

There are many other "international" tournaments held during the year to give FIDE norm opportunities.

So, in summary, I recommend that:

1. The Australian Championship is restricted to Australian players;
2. It is held every year (not alternate years);
3. It is promoted to attract sponsors.
Brian has extensive credentials organising tournaments i believe.
I'd like to hear Ian Roger's opinion.

Denis_Jessop
25-12-2011, 10:48 AM
Brian has extensive credentials organising tournaments i believe.
I'd like to hear Ian Roger's opinion.

You wouldn't know it from his 3-point summary which ignores many relevant elements.

DJ

Vlad
25-12-2011, 01:09 PM
I think there is a very simple solution to this. In the next championship in 2 years time put a temporary restriction of no foreigners. Give Brian the right to raise sponsorship. What do you think, Brian?

If he is successful, one can talk about having this rule in place on a more permanent basis. If not, well it is worth a try. Just looking at the current field this rule will only affect one player, would not really change the composition of the tournament.

Brian_Jones
26-12-2011, 09:16 AM
Let me modify my recommendations to change the emphasis of this debate:

1. The Australian Championship should be a closed event held every year in January;

2. The Australian Open should be a seperate open event held every year but maybe not in January;

3. Australia should hold internationally rated open events using all available national and state public holidays;

4. All chess events should be well promoted to attract sponsors.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2011, 05:00 PM
2. The Australian Open should be a seperate open event held every year but maybe not in January;

If it is keeping the same, or a similar, format then when else could you put it? Or are you suggesting an event that would be called the "Australian Open" but that would actually be very different in format to what we currently have?

Brian_Jones
27-12-2011, 08:44 AM
If it is keeping the same, or a similar, format then when else could you put it? Or are you suggesting an event that would be called the "Australian Open" but that would actually be very different in format to what we currently have?

Different format is OK. SIO was innovative. In today's modern world one round per day is a dream only available to professional chess players. So nine round, five day events are becoming the norm (only requires one week off work).

I quite liked the Amir Karibasic event in late December (competing with Singapore) until it was flattened by the ACF.

Europe has its summer holidays in late July, August. Horse-racing has spring and autumn carnivals.

The 2012 Asian Amateur and Asian Senior Championships will build on the 2012 NSW Labour Day Weekend.

We need national event planners who are proactive and think outside the square.

For example; possibly linking with corporate events, conventions, professions, military occasions, sports festivals, etc. etc.

Desmond
27-12-2011, 08:57 AM
A forest where only one will emerge the winner...

Returning to the subject, I don't see why overseas entries that meet the criteria for participation in the Australian Championships shouldn't be allowed to play.Nor do I, but I wonder if instead of giving them conditions, improving the locals' conditions and prize money might raise local participation. I'm not sure, just a thought.

antichrist
27-12-2011, 10:56 AM
but if the world champ wanted to participate we would not refuse him now would we?

Brian_Jones
27-12-2011, 11:57 AM
Nor do I, but I wonder if instead of giving them conditions, improving the locals' conditions and prize money might raise local participation. I'm not sure, just a thought.

I know at least one IM and one FM who would have played in Geelong with a timetable that started on 2 January 2012. ;)

Yes, improved conditions generally would entice more top Australian players to participate. Also, where is the Australian Senior and Australian Women's Championships? :)

Garrett
27-12-2011, 03:14 PM
I quite liked the Amir Karibasic event in late December (competing with Singapore) until it was flattened by the ACF.


yeah totally flattened. And at such a late stage too.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2011, 04:19 PM
That one's been discussed here several times before but basically the switch to an after-Jan-1 Aus Champs schedule for the Champs/Open was not something that was a deliberate ACF decision. It just happened that for a modest number of years in a row the events had been held at venues that preferred to start, or could only start, after NYE. It was always possible a different venue might prefer to start before NYE again so it was a perilous time to go scheduling an event. It would be perverse for the ACF to force the organisers of its most important event to make their plans around something that had popped into holes in its scheduling just because the smaller event had scheduled itself for then first.

And this time of year would be a hopeless time for an Open if you had both events annually. It would compete for entrants with the Championship and most likely be overshadowed by it.

I don't necessarily object to the idea of having a five-day Open at some other stage. Our practice of having Championships only every second year is a bit of an oddity.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2011, 04:21 PM
Nor do I, but I wonder if instead of giving them conditions, improving the locals' conditions and prize money might raise local participation.

What conditions are they being given?

ER
27-12-2011, 07:54 PM
yeah totally flattened. And at such a late stage too.


Agreed. Exactly like Garrett stated it. We were there, and enjoyed every minute of it. :clap: Plus, I won one of the books Garrett donated! :D

On the other hand if you asked me if the possible deferring of the Aus Champ to some other date early Jan, would have a detrimental effect on the Aus Juniors Champs or the Queenstown event, my answer would be I do not know!

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2011, 08:22 PM
On the other hand if you asked me if the possible deferring of the Aus Champ to some other date early Jan, would have a detrimental effect on the Aus Juniors Champs or the Queenstown event, my answer would be I do not know!

They clash anyway; Queenstown starts on 15 Jan, Aus Junior on 14 Jan. The organisers were keen to have the old one game/day schedule with rest days and that would not have been possible without clashing with those two if you started after NYE. With a more compressed schedule it could have been done.

Santa
30-12-2011, 09:14 PM
Different format is OK. SIO was innovative. In today's modern world one round per day is a dream only available to professional chess players. So nine round, five day events are becoming the norm (only requires one week off work).


I am playing in the reserves I particularly like the fact it's one round per day and a reasonably slow rate of play. Probably, I'd not have entered otherwise.
In WA, most of the tournaments I have played in at 60 minutes plus ten seconds per move. I'm often at least competitive with most of my opponents, including Marc Vlietstra, until my clock goes down to around 20 minutes.

Here, after four rounds I've yet to play a player under rated 1600., and my score is 1.5/4.

The schedule allows detailed post mortem for those who like them, to consult chess databases to refresh opening lines, and on a good day, to find opponents games so as to get an idea of what openings they play. I was unable to find today's opponent's games, and was surprised ny Alekhine's Defence about which I know almost nothing. At two games per day those things would not be possible.

The WA entrant in the champs is going nicely. As is Dick Lilly in the reserves.

Brian_Jones
31-12-2011, 09:34 AM
In WA, most of the tournaments I have played in at 60 minutes plus ten seconds per move.

Foundation Day Open will be FIDE-rated for the first time in 2012 and included in the 2012 Yulgilbar-Think Big Oceania Grand Prix.

MichaelBaron
31-12-2011, 10:39 AM
Denis, the trouble is that if you scratch an Aussie they want a beer.
:clap:

How can one promote intellectual activities to Australians? :hmm:

ElevatorEscapee
01-01-2012, 08:18 PM
:clap:

How can one promote intellectual activities to Australians? :hmm:
^^^ By providing free beer and a chance to watch the cricket! ;) I think you've solved it Mick, HOORAY! :D

Desmond
02-01-2012, 07:08 AM
I would suggest that cricket is a thoughtful sport compared to, oh say, Ice Hockey.

Rincewind
02-01-2012, 10:26 AM
I would suggest that cricket is a thoughtful sport compared to, oh say, Ice Hockey.

True that one can see it that way. However there is a large section of the crowd at most tests and one dayers more intent on drinking beer than having anything to do with thinking.

Desmond
02-01-2012, 10:41 AM
True that one can see it that way. However there is a large section of the crowd at most tests and one dayers more intent on drinking beer than having anything to do with thinking.Are you saying those at the ice hockey are a more ponderous bunch?

Rincewind
02-01-2012, 10:50 AM
Are you saying those at the ice hockey are a more ponderous bunch?

No not at all. Just point out that not everyone at a cricket match is thinking that much about the cricket. In fact a large number seem oblivious to the goings on out in the centre.

Just because there is an intellectual depth to the game of cricket and that cricket is a popular spectator sport in Australia. It does not follow that Australians think all that deeply about cricket or or are particularly intellectual compared with (say) Russia where ice hockey is popular.

Brian_Jones
02-01-2012, 01:24 PM
No not at all. Just point out that not everyone at a cricket match is thinking that much about the cricket. In fact a large number seem oblivious to the goings on out in the centre.

Barry, so you have been to a Big Bash League match also.

There are times when I think the beach balls, the music and the dancing girls beat the chess in Geelong every time? :eek:

Rincewind
02-01-2012, 02:19 PM
Barry, so you have been to a Big Bash League match also.

It's on my list of things to try right after cannibalism.

Desmond
02-01-2012, 03:18 PM
No not at all. Just point out that not everyone at a cricket match is thinking that much about the cricket. In fact a large number seem oblivious to the goings on out in the centre.

Just because there is an intellectual depth to the game of cricket and that cricket is a popular spectator sport in Australia. It does not follow that Australians think all that deeply about cricket or or are particularly intellectual compared with (say) Russia where ice hockey is popular.I reckon (no, I don't have proof) that there would be a correlation between grey matter exertion of players and grey matter exertion of spectators of a given game.

Rincewind
02-01-2012, 06:15 PM
I reckon (no, I don't have proof) that there would be a correlation between grey matter exertion of players and grey matter exertion of spectators of a given game.

See you at the bar under the scoreboard at Adelaide Oval day one of the fourth test - and if you still hold that to be true, I'll buy you a beer. ;)