PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Doeberl Cup



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Mischa
23-03-2005, 04:55 PM
I didn't realise Narelle was a close friend of yours JGB.
Haven't you just got back from OS?
That was quick.

JGB
23-03-2005, 05:01 PM
[No Comment]








.

Mischa
23-03-2005, 05:02 PM
Touch a nerve?

JGB
23-03-2005, 05:06 PM
I didn't realise Narelle was a close friend of yours JGB.
Haven't you just got back from OS?
That was quick.

anyways, what was quick?

Mischa
23-03-2005, 05:07 PM
{No comment}

Mischa
23-03-2005, 05:27 PM
Belthasar,
James just asked me to wish you luck

Alan Shore
23-03-2005, 09:56 PM
Belthasar,
James just asked me to wish you luck

Good luck to him too, I'll see him Friday!

ChessMum
23-03-2005, 10:03 PM
Well... after a very early start to catch flights etc, we are here!

Weather cool, but not too bad. I couldn't find my jumpers this morning, so will be a good excuse to buy some new ones if the weather does turn very cold. We are staying in Liversidge Apartments at ANU. Nice environment and not badly priced.

Noidea, Luthien has chosen to enter the Minor for the challenge of playing lots of juniors, particulary against some who will be rated below her. She also chose the Minor as it is her first Doeberl and she is "checking it out". She seriously considered the Major for the extra challenges of the games. She made the choice (and did it very logically from where she sees her chess, what she is working at and her motivations at the moment). If James has chosen the Major, then he will have done the same thing - made a very logical decision. I'd trust him and leave him with it.

Cheers

ChessMum

firegoat7
24-03-2005, 01:06 AM
Dear Noidea,

Im probably to late with this post but,
IMO James should play in the minor. I believe you need to learn to win and that since James is a serious player this will probably be his last chance to win such an event. Champions need to create an aura of invincibility.

Cheers Fg7

Garvinator
24-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Dear Noidea,

Im probably to late with this post but,
IMO James should play in the minor. I believe you need to learn to win.

Cheers Fg7
i agree with fg7 for the part that i have quoted. If all the players play in 'their correct division' then that division will be alot stronger. If alot of the players who are 1500+ and play in the minor, then there will be plenty of strong players to play against.

Quite often, the hardest games to win for either player, are the ones against ppl your own rating, mainly because both players believe they can win the game but their isnt a great difference in the playing strength of either player, so the games are hard fought and competitive.

For James's case, I would recommend playing in the minor. It has been shown that James's rating has plateaud for now and also he didnt have a good Australian Juniors when he was number 1 seed. This could imply that James didnt deal with being number 1 seed well. Perhaps more experience is required at being a highly seeded and marked player.

Thunderspirit
24-03-2005, 03:14 AM
While we may all have kind advice on where James should play, too much info and too many people ''helping" does no good. It should be a decision , made by James first and foremost.

Libby
24-03-2005, 06:52 AM
Don't overanalyse - it's the bane of all chess parents!

After the event, if he does badly (and I'm not wishing that on you :D ) you will sigh and wonder "should he have entered the Minor?" If he does badly in the Minor, you will look at the lost rating points and crushed self-esteem and know that he should have played the Major.

Without our crystal balls we have no hope of knowing which "chess brain" our children bring with them to the event. My daughter is immensely inconsistent which keeps her rating firmly in the "average" range. It has been a source of frustration to me for many years as people approach me to tell me she is very talented but .... (and there is always a but which seems to focus around the need to play more slowly, remain focussed and restrain a little of her aggression).

However, they are just junior sports players. Just kids. Some will go on to great things in chess but how many will make a living from the sport? Not many, and most who do (in Australia) are not doing so because of their chess skill but because of their business sense. The important goal should be supporting them to do their best but always with the hope that they will still enjoy the game enough to play it - socially or competitively - as an adult.

James has legitimate reasons to choose both events. Even I could see the Major as a better option for Kayleigh because she would be "safe" from a poor performance as she really couldn't lose to a lower rated player :doh:

The important thing, afterwards, is to be able to accept the outcome and not go around berating yourself that it might have been the "wrong one." (note to self - must take own advice!) He'll be fine. I hope he has a great one but if he has a shocker - he'll be fine with that too and bounce back at the next tournament. Believe me - I've watched so many games where I will be sagely informed that my daughter is "absolutely winning" only to see a tiny (or catastrophic) blunder, just one little move, completely change the complexion and outcome. Anyone can "pop a Queen" but sometimes it's just a pawn push at the wrong moment or an unintentional touch of the wrong bishop and it's all over.

They are just kids. Talented kids but just kids. This is just one tournament.

Mischa
24-03-2005, 07:52 AM
Sound advice from all of you, thanks.
I think it should not be my decision but one to made by James...He says he is wary of losing more rating points (thanks to the Aus, Junior) and wants more experience.
It is a little harsh to say he has plateaud he is only 10 and has years to go.
Libby you are so right...I wonder which "chess brain" he will take with him.

Trent Parker
24-03-2005, 08:07 AM
If i play in doeberl next year i'll play in the minor (as long as my rating is below 1600) just because i'd prefer to win a major prize in a minor before i went and played in the Major... Just for the experience of winning a tournament. :uhoh:

Recherché
24-03-2005, 09:36 AM
I understand Rukman and Eugene, given your Mexican locality, but why Sherab? know you shared a lodge with him in Mt B, but I would have thought that would have engendered more wringing of neck feelings than partisanship?

I didn't find him to be a particularly irritating lodgemate. Sherab's a good kid who cares about his chess and seems to work pretty hard at it. I think he deserves to do well in the Doeberl Cup. :)


It's tough...I think he plays higher than his rating suggests...who out there has played him and can give me a clue?

Have you asked Leonid Sandler, or whoever is coaching James?

I can't recall ever having played James myself, but from what I've noticed of his results, I think I'd be inclined to play in the Major if I were him. Also I don't really know James, but from observations at the Victorian Open last year, he seems to be pretty ambitious, and to get a kick out of playing (and beating) strong opposition.


Why these three ...Rukman, Eugene and Sherab?

Because I know them. In the case of Rukman and Eugene I've also played against them several times. :)

Mischa
24-03-2005, 10:48 AM
All who help James out...he is lucky with his mentors...have different ideas. I think Leonid suggests the minor to help build his confidence up...David Hacche says the major becuase he thinks James is stronger than his rating suggest, Darryl didn't offer an opinion and all other opinion is divided.
They all just left, along with his dad, still hotly debating the issue.
I guess I will have to wait and see.

pax
24-03-2005, 10:54 AM
Juniors should play in tough competitions... It is also a good way to gain rating points.
I've heard this repeated a number of times but I'm not convinced of its veracity. Can you fill me in on the reasoning?

I think it's true in a couple of circumstances:

a) If they are good enough to score well in the major, they will probably earn more points than they can possibly gain from the minor. For example, a 1500!! player scoring 5/7 against 1800 average will probably gain more points than 7/7 against 1500 average.

b) Many juniors have a "volatile" game. That is, when they play well they play very well (able to beat much higher rated players), but they can be susceptible to spectacular blunders which would lose them a game against much lower rated players. Such players might have difficulty scoring a very high result in the minor, but might yet have a good chance of a solid result in the major.

Mischa
24-03-2005, 10:59 AM
This would explain James exactly...he plays far better against adults than other juniors

jenni
24-03-2005, 11:11 AM
I didn't find him to be a particularly irritating lodgemate. Sherab's a good kid who cares about his chess and seems to work pretty hard at it. I think he deserves to do well in the Doeberl Cup. :)

I'm actually quite fond of Sherab - he has definitely improved over the years.

I will have to introduce you to his younger brother Jamie-Lee and then you'll know what Sherab was like 7 years ago. :)

jenni
24-03-2005, 11:21 AM
Jenni,

You defined one school of thought (which you lean towards) as...



I've heard this repeated a number of times but I'm not convinced of its veracity. Can you fill me in on the reasoning?

It is really because of the inconsistency of the kids.

They are quite capable of beating a 1700 one round and then going down to a 400 point player the next. You will often find a junior who ends up not going up any rating points from a tournament, because they have squandered their gains.

if they are in someting like the major, then they tend to hang onto their gains, because there are no tiny rated people to lose to.

It is a similar problem to why kids in the 1000 to 1400 range in Canberra tend to be under - rated. There is no floor underpinning the ratings in Canberra. I've played 1200 point players in NSW who would have enormous trouble maintaining a 600 point rating in Canberra, but because there aren't any small rated players in their clubs, they manage to hang onto their ratings.

(At this point both Bill and the doctor leap to the attack :) )

Mischa
24-03-2005, 11:53 AM
Not being in canberra myself over Easter, would appreciate any updates from those who are

firegoat7
24-03-2005, 03:29 PM
Even I could see the Major as a better option for Kayleigh because she would be "safe" from a poor performance as she really couldn't lose to a lower rated player :doh:



Isn't it sad when we have a system of comparing people ie Ratings, that actually prevents people from playing in events they are more suited to, simply because they may lose. Sad on three fronts, the individual concerned , the "weakies" who are shown contempt ie (not good enough to play), and the "strong" players" who represent targets.

I think this problem is a major contributer to poor chess culture.
Unfortunately, it seems this particular viewpoint is rampant amongst the whole chess population.

Why do they let anybody under 2000 in the top section? Why not make people earn their spots ie don't take strong or weaker players for granted.
Why is it so bad to play people within your own rating pool?

Cheers Fg7

arosar
24-03-2005, 03:39 PM
Not being in canberra myself over Easter, would appreciate any updates from those who are

If I can find a suitable computer with net connection, I'll post pics daily.

AR

Mischa
24-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Thanks arosar, much appreciated

jenni
24-03-2005, 04:02 PM
Beautiful Autumn day today and the weekend is looking even nicer. Am contemplating bringing out the summer clothes again.....

Thunderspirit
24-03-2005, 07:21 PM
I'm a believer that a player should play in the natural rating division unless they have won the event before. Playing up to avoid the loss of rating points is completely pointless for club players rated 1600 and below.

I never gained rating points form Doeberl minor... big deal...

As for playing up, if you are underrated you can play badly and still gain points. (I may of mentioned this before...)

One year I played Doeberl Major and scored 1/5. I had 2 draws with players 1500, lost 3, took 2 half point byes (to go out) and at 1100 my rating went up. I played horrible chess, and didn't care: there was no pressure.

I play Doeberl minor, every game is important as I seen as Ok to good in the feild, and I want to win the event. It didn't happen.... Sigh... But I gave it ago...

antichrist
25-03-2005, 06:27 AM
Now boys no fighting nor swearing like in previous years. And raise a toast to Bobby's release. And be thankful that I am not there!

Rated 7.5 on BD's IP Index

Libby
25-03-2005, 07:30 AM
This would explain James exactly...he plays far better against adults than other juniors

I think there are few parents of juniors - even very strong juniors - who wouldn't say the same thing.

Up-and-coming kids covet a rating over 1000, and then over something like 1400-1500. For them to get there, they need the experience and maturity and consistency not to squander their last win over a 1600 point adult by losing to an 800 rated kid.

The thing is, the 800 rated kid may actually be well on his/her way to a rating of 1200+ themselves but inexperience or lack of event play has kept them lower. Or maybe they've just "clicked" with their game and are ready to have a big leap on the rating chart.

So as parents or casual observers looking at raw results, without any context, those losses to lower rated juniors look tragic when the games may have been of equal quality to the win against the higher rated adult.

In Canberra we run a number of rated "junior-only" events. We also have senior clubs where the "adults" are in the minority. So our juniors play juniors everywhere. It's really hard for the kids to lift their rating. In the Minor we look like having masses of these kids turning up to play. At least in this event, there are the adult numbers to give the event the sort of balance our kids rarely get to see.

Libby
25-03-2005, 08:18 AM
Not being in canberra myself over Easter, would appreciate any updates from those who are

Apart from stuff posted here you might get bits & pieces here

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2005DoeberlCup.htm

Mischa
25-03-2005, 09:33 AM
Thanks Libby

Trent Parker
25-03-2005, 10:22 AM
Yeah i had an excellent game down MtB against sweeney. He was up a Bishop for a couple of pawns but he tried too hard to win... got my pawns rollin'.... I stuffed up but he missed the draw opportunity. Will dig up the game and post it sometime. (the pgn on the site doesn't give the whole game.... :(

Now, I never ever play 1.e4 but i remembered that Sweeney played the Scandinavian against 1.e4 and a Benoni against 1.d4. So I used a tool called transposition :D




1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.f3 Nf6 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4 a6 8.Bd3 Nb4 9.Bc4 N8c6 10.c3 Nd5 11.Ne2 Nb6 12.Bd3 e6 13.Bd2 Be7 14.h4 h5 15.Nf4 Bf5 16.Be2 e5 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Ng3 Nd3+ 19.Nxd3 Bxd3 20.Ne4 Nc4 21.Bc1 Bxe2 22.Qxe2 Nd6 23.Bd2 Qd7 24.O-O-O Qb5 25.Nxd6+ cxd6 26.Qe4 Qc6 27.Rhe1 Qxe4 28.Rxe4 Kd7 29.Bf4 Rhe8 30.Red4 Rad8 31.Be5 f6 32.gxf6 gxf6 33.Bxf6 Bxf6 34.Rxd6+ Ke7 35.Rxd8 Rxd8 36.Rg1 Kf7 37.Kc2 Rd5 38.Rh1 Ke6 39.Re1+ Kf5 40.Re4 Be5 41.Rb4 Rd7 42.Rc4 Rd8 43.Rb4 b5 44.a4 bxa4 45.Rxa4 Rd6 46.Re4 a5 47.Rc4 Bf4 48.Ra4 Rd2+ 49.Kb3 Rd5 50.Kc2 Bc7 51.Rc4 Rd7 52.Rc5+ Kf4 53.Rxh5 Kxf3 54.Rh8 Kg4 55.h5 Bf4 56.h6 Kh5 57.h7 Kh6 58.Rf8 Kxh7 59.Rxf4 Kg6 60.Rd4 Rb7 61.Rd5 Ra7 62.Kb3 Rb7+ 63.Kc2 Ra7 64.c4 Kf6 65.Kb3 Rb7+ 66.Ka4 Rc7 67.b3 Rb7 68.Rb5 Rd7 69.Kxa5 Rd1 70.Rb6+ Ke7 71.c5 Kd8 72.b4 Rc1 73.Kb5 Rc2 74.c6 Rc1 75.Rb7 Kc8 76.Kb6 Rh1 77.Rg7 Rh8 78.Ra7

There may be some moves wrong.. :(
But the end position is correct.

At the end of the game I had 4min 47 seconds left on the clock while Sweeney had only1min 30 seconds on the clock left. Considering how many moves occured this game went 4hrs 20 min thereabouts.

Garvinator
25-03-2005, 12:49 PM
Considering how many moves occured this game went 4hrs 20 min thereabouts.
and im sure Lee loved every minute of it ;) :lol:

Paul S
25-03-2005, 03:04 PM
Turns out there is a computer in the reception area of my hotel (Forrest Motor Inn) where one can get internet access ($1 per 10 minutes). So, for better or worse, I will be able to make some posts from time to time during the next few days.

Round 1 is in progress (the Doeberl kicked off around 2pm). I had a win against an underrated junior after about an hour (both of us played our moves quickly). I was probably a little lucky, as he was a pawn up for a long time before I managed to wear him down and win after about 50 moves.

There are 216 players - 67 in the Open, 61 in the Major (U2000) and 78 in the Minor (U1600). However, these numbers are subject to final confirmation, as it is possible that a couple of the players listed in the draw (who had prepaid) may not have been able to make it to the Doeberl at the last minute.

Top 10 players are Rogers, Johansen, Lane, Smerdon, Solomon, Wohl, Bjelobrk, Canfell, Xie and West.

The BB's Bruce Dickinson/Belthasar/Dion Sampson is the top seed in the Minor.

I've met a few BB personalities for the first time today - Belthasar, Recherche, Jenni and our el Supremo (Denis Jessop). It was nice to meet them in person and some of them looked quite different to what I had imagined!!!

Earlier today I also caught up briefly with some BB regulars that I know reasonably well - Shaun, George Xie, Matt Sweeney, Kerry Stead, Arosar, 1 min grandmaster and The Wise Man.

Mischa
25-03-2005, 03:09 PM
Wish I was there

Trent Parker
25-03-2005, 03:40 PM
ditto

Garvinator
25-03-2005, 04:29 PM
The BB's Bruce Dickinson/Belthasar/Dion Sampson is the top seed in the Minor.
three number one seeds hey, must be quite crowded ;) :lol:

Paul S
25-03-2005, 08:04 PM
:( Lost my round 2 game. :(

Looks like I will have to play some underrated juniors tomorrow!

antichrist
25-03-2005, 09:47 PM
What happened round 1?

jenni
25-03-2005, 10:50 PM
I was going to grab the first round results and bring them home and put them up here, but their computer only works with a floppy not a flash drive, so couldn't do that. Have to try and find an old fashioned disk tomorrow.

I don't think there have been any upsets among the top seeds in the Premier. Ian Rogers, Darryl, Gary Lane, Aleks Wohl, David Smerdon, George Xie, Bjelobrk all on 2/2.

Jonathan Humphrey had a loss in the first round and I think a draw in the second. Gareth (my one) has drawn with Rujevic and John Curtis so far. Most of the other juniors have had 1 loss and 1 win. JGB is on 0 out of 2. Gareth Charles on 1 out of 2.

In the major Shervin Rafizadeh is on 2 out of 2 and probably a lot of others. I know Eugene Schon is and Sherab Guo-Yuthok. James Morris is on 1.5 out 2.

I think Amiel is on 1/2 out of 2 - he is spending so much time wandering around taking photos, that I don't think Chess is a priority. Wiseman is on a 1/2 from the first round, so I am sure he is happy with that. Don't know who he drew with, but it would have been an upset. Max Illingworth lost his first round. Can't remember CandyCane :wall:

In the minor both Recherche and Balthazar are on 2/2. Still early days, as there are quite a few on 2/2, including some of the better juniors and the Jamaican Champion.

Lovely day catching up with everyone and watching games :)

Milk and cups haven't run out, so there should be nothing to complain about so far.

Rincewind
25-03-2005, 11:04 PM
Can't remember CandyCane :wall:

:wall:

What about Sweeney? Don't know if any other Wollongong people are going. Maybe Barakat?

jase
25-03-2005, 11:06 PM
Brilliant. Thanks so much for the updates Jenni. Should be some excellent clashes tomorrow afternoon, particularly among the GM/IM brigade.

And we will see which of the youg stars are going to emerge, as these events always require a very high winning score.

We must encourage Amiel to curate an exhibition one day - he is always about the place with his camera.

Hope to see Canberra on Sunday - have been tinkering with my motor scooter in recent weeks and feel the need to stretch its legs - so until then I'll be keeping an eye out for developments here.

pax
26-03-2005, 12:57 AM
And we will see which of the youg stars are going to emerge, as these events always require a very high winning score.

I notice Junta Ikeda beat Ronald Yu in rd 1. A big scalp for him.

arosar
26-03-2005, 06:16 AM
Bugger! I can't find a decent cafe with a good connection and that has a flash drive. So can't upload the pics!! Guess you'll have to wait til next Monday night when I get home. I got some really good ones too - including the TWM and the exiled one standing next to each other. Of the BBers already mentioned, Bas is here too.

I'm actually on .5/2. Dunno what happened in the 1st round. I was moving as quickly as I could to take pics, and then BANG! Piece lost!

The vibe this time around seems more exciting than last year - particularly in the top section. So many strong players.

AR

arosar
26-03-2005, 07:31 AM
Oh...there was another 'cheating junior' incident. And that's all I'm going to say about that except that the angered party has declared war.

AR

Ian Rout
26-03-2005, 07:48 AM
All the tables as at Round 2 are now up at

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2005DoeberlCup.htm

Thanks to Shaun for supplying the SP files, which I couldn't get last night for reasons explained by Jenni.

Paul S
26-03-2005, 08:47 AM
A beautiful autumn day in Canberra (just like yesterday). Clear blue sky with not a cloud in sight. Some of the many European trees are starting to change colour (from past Canberra experience the autumn colours would be around their peak in about 3 weeks time).

Hey Libby - come and say hello sometime today (I'm the person wearing a Neil Diamond T shirt - one of your favourite musicians :lol: ;) ).

Would like to say more, but I must be off now - my time is almost up and I have run out of $1 coins to put in the slot machine of my hotel's computer.

Paul S
26-03-2005, 11:05 AM
Like last year's Doeberl, I'm having trouble against underrated Juniors!

Just finished my round 3 game against a Junior (Edward Xing) who was supposedly rated 991. I did well to get a draw against him.

Yesterday in the first round I played a Junior (Michael Redpath) who was supposedly rated 896. In the end I was probably a little lucky to win - he was a pawn up, but I managed to eventualy wear him down.

Will probably end up playing more unrated Juniors in the last 4 rounds. I probably have only myeself to blame, losing against an adult player (Carl Nater) rated 1201 in round 2 (although having a beer and a couple of glasses of wine with dinner before the match probably didn't help my chess!) means that I am not among the top part of the draw in the Minor (and in the part of the field where all the underrated Juniors are!).

Talking about underrated Juniors, Eugene Schon (supposedly 1343) is on 2/2 at start of today in the Major (he was supposedly rated around 850 in last year's Doeberl when I played him and was lucky to draw against him).

Libby
26-03-2005, 11:24 AM
Like last year's Doeberl, I'm having trouble against underrated Juniors!

Just finished my round 3 game against a Junior (Edward Xing) who was supposedly rated 991. I did well to get a draw against him.

Yesterday in the first round I played a Junior (Michael Redpath) who was supposedly rated 896. In the end I was probably a little lucky to win - he was a pawn up, but I managed to eventualy wear him down.

Will probably end up playing more unrated Juniors in the last 4 rounds. I probably have only myeself to blame, losing against an adult player (Carl Nater) rated 1201 in round 2 (although having a beer and a couple of glasses of wine with dinner before the match probably didn't help my chess!) means that I am not among the top part of the draw in the Minor (and in the part of the field where all the unrated Juniors are!).

Talking about underrated Juniors, Eugene Schon (supposedly 1343) is on 2/2 at start of today in the Major (he was supposedly rated around 850 in last year's Doeberl when I played him and was lucky to draw against him).

Yes, well these are juniors in our ACT 800-1300 range. We have such a healthy crop of them at the moment, and they play each other all the time, that it's pretty hard for them to move up as fast as we'd like them to.

They can still suffer a bit on inconsistency but I think the big problem is we have a pretty hot group coming through at the u10-u12 level in Canberra and they're very mean to one another, and don't often get a big field like ths one to kick them along.

Davidflude
26-03-2005, 02:57 PM
Eugene Schon and Michael Morris have both improved a great deal over the last
year and are still improving fast. They play a lot at Box Hill. They take some beating especially in the monthly Sunday allego tournaments. We always put a few seniors in amongst the juniors. At times I think that I am the Cocoanut in the cocoanut shy the way they throw everytning at me.

Mischa
26-03-2005, 05:01 PM
I don't think I know who is Michael Morris?

bobby1972
26-03-2005, 05:34 PM
any results

Mischa
26-03-2005, 05:46 PM
Just looked it up, I think you mean James Morris? He and Eugene are best friends, both Box Hill

Paul S
26-03-2005, 06:43 PM
Have just got back to my hotel after a nice dinner.

In round 4 I played Tim Clark, who is rated 301.

When I saw the draw I immediately thought, hey, how could someone of 301 be on 1.5/3 like me?!

Anyway, I won my game (he lost a knight early on and then got discouraged), but he played a lot better than someone of (supposedly) 301! In fact, he beat a player of somewhere between 1300-1399 (I forget the exact rating) earlier in this tournament (which is why I had to end up playing him). After playing him, I thought Tim's "real" rating was more like 1100 to 1200 (rather than 301!).

Thunderspirit
26-03-2005, 07:31 PM
Paul you should know to ignore the ratings...

The other side of the coin is rather evil: but I have to say it... Rather than your opponent playing at 1200, any chance you're playing at 600? :cool:

That's a joke, seeing you snapped me at the Canterbury Rapid, but I had to say it...

Thunderspirit
26-03-2005, 07:34 PM
It"s great to see Alek Wohl playing in Oz, it's been ages since he's played in Oz.

Change of plans more me. I arrive in Oz 6:30 tomorrow morning. I'm at Singapore at the moment. I will visit Doeberl on Monday...

Denis_Jessop
26-03-2005, 07:58 PM
Just looked it up, I think you mean James Morris? He and Eugene are best friends, both Box Hill

Yes; but there is a Michael Morris - a junior from Sydney rated 1900 odd - in the same event.

DJ

jenni
26-03-2005, 08:49 PM
I notice Junta Ikeda beat Ronald Yu in rd 1. A big scalp for him.
Ronald is struggling a bit - HSC this year and I don't think chess has been a priority. He went down to Chris Wallis this morning.

Chris was playing in a good game against Greg Canfell when I left. He was down 2 pawns and short of time, but making Greg work.

Other juniors in the Premier - Ben Lazarus is having a good time. With a draw against Phil Viner, a win against Castor, draw against John Curtis and a win against Septehn Bartlett, he is currently undeafeated.

Vincent Suttor is also doing well, with a draw against Tomek Rej to take him to 2.5.

Then there are a heap of juniors on 2.

Ian Rogers is on 4 out of 4. Gary Lane had a draw with Guy West in round 3 - according to Guy just a boring position that was going nowhere.

Ian beat Greg Canfell in round 3 and Aleks Wohl in round 4.

When I left Stephen S and Darryl were slugging it out. Apparently it was drawn and Stephen was in time trouble. However the general feel was that Solo would try and go for the win and perhaps lose. So either Darryl/Solo sharing the lead with Ian, or Ian clear in the lead.

In the Major there are 4 on 3.5 Shervn Rafizadeh, Jesse Jager, Milan Grcic and relatively unknown but strong junior from NSW, Michael Morris.

In the minor Anthony To, Buciu, Pablo Williams (Jamaican Champion) and Balthasar share the lead. Recherche fell to the mighty 9 year old Yi Yuan (even all Recherche's minties couldn't save him :) )

jenni
26-03-2005, 08:59 PM
Oh...there was another 'cheating junior' incident. And that's all I'm going to say about that except that the angered party has declared war.

AR

Amiel you are stirring - I wan't involved in this (thank God!). But Cathy said the story changed everytime she talked to the persona nd waht was done was legitimate - there was no cheating involved. Just an aggravated adult looking for excuses.....

Like the one who threw a wobbly becasue he won a piece anf then popped it back later on and then tried to blame his opponent for not having the good manners to resign when he was down a piece.....

Love Doeberl - always more fun than a barrell of monkeys.

Incidentally while on this topic, Wiseman had another good win today against Malcom McMillan, so he is on 1.5 out of 4. I understand he has a very good coach these days. :cool:

jenni
26-03-2005, 09:01 PM
:wall:

What about Sweeney? Don't know if any other Wollongong people are going. Maybe Barakat?

Sweeney managed to foget there was an evening round on Friday, so forfeited that one and then wasn't in hte draw for round 3 (unauthorised absence). However he is back in now and I think got a draw in the last round - I ma told he was lucky to get it.....

Candy-Cane managed to get into massive time trouble and ended up with a draw from a won position.

Thunderspirit
26-03-2005, 09:01 PM
Love Doeberl - always more fun than a barrell of monkeys. (Jenni)

That wasn't your reacation over the Peter Haige incident??

DoroPhil
26-03-2005, 09:03 PM
Any chance of crosstables tonight? Thanks.

jenni
26-03-2005, 09:10 PM
Love Doeberl - always more fun than a barrell of monkeys. (Jenni)

That wasn't your reacation over the Peter Haige incident??

Well yes having a lunatic smashing pieces off the table and scaring juniors witless, was going a bit too far. :)

However it is amusing to look back on......

jenni
26-03-2005, 09:10 PM
Any chance of crosstables tonight? Thanks.

Sorry - I've been sent Sp files, but they only seem to go up to the draw for round 3 ...

Ian Rout
26-03-2005, 09:57 PM
Had to leave before the last game finished (QvR+B+N+2P) so couldn't get the files. However Solomon won (I think, there were a lot of spectators) so he and Rogers would be the only two on 4/4.

Davidflude
26-03-2005, 10:06 PM
Whoops, I meant James Morris soory about that

jase
26-03-2005, 10:45 PM
Spoke to a friend at the venue - actually he was at the casino - who confirms that Solo beat DJ.

Rincewind
26-03-2005, 11:30 PM
Sweeney managed to foget there was an evening round on Friday, so forfeited that one and then wasn't in hte draw for round 3 (unauthorised absence). However he is back in now and I think got a draw in the last round - I ma told he was lucky to get it.....

Candy-Cane managed to get into massive time trouble and ended up with a draw from a won position.

Thanks for that. I also recognise an expected Wollongong particpant. Vlade Stojkovski. Seems to have had a tough draw so far but should improve his results in the final rounds. ;)

arosar
26-03-2005, 11:47 PM
This is a bit of a funny tournament. Some junior keeps asking, "what is the colour of your pooh?" Then when I tell him to stop, he goes, "Where is Jesus?"

Just finished the lightning. Poor Mr Press. I think at one point he must have wanted to simply go home. Something happened that caused all the results data from rnd 2 to 4 to disappear. So he had to ask everyone for the results all over again! A complete disaster.

AR

antichrist
26-03-2005, 11:51 PM
Thanks for that. I also recognise an expected Wollongong particpant. Vlade Stojkovski. Seems to have had a tough draw so far but should improve his results in the final rounds. ;)

Not made of steel those Gong players. ha ha.

Stupid Sweeney can't get his act together to attend games, that will probably be his new whinge "over there". Even the little kids don't miss out on games.

Libby
27-03-2005, 09:37 AM
This is a bit of a funny tournament. Some junior keeps asking, "what is the colour of your pooh?" Then when I tell him to stop, he goes, "Where is Jesus?"

Wow - some of the favourite BB topics even invade Doeberl!

antichrist
27-03-2005, 09:48 AM
Wow - some of the favourite BB topics even invade Doeberl!


Libby, do you think I should be sponsered down there so a fuller range of topics can be attacked, even run a few polls for them, teach the youngsters the finer points of double meanings etc. etc

Rincewind
27-03-2005, 11:46 AM
Not made of steel those Gong players. ha ha.

Vlade is a bit like you antichrist. Likes fast games with guillotine finishes. He only plays at our club when we have Blitz tournies. He plays at another local club where they play a lot of 15 minute games. I was a little surprised to see him in the main draw and only looked when I noticed his name in the Blitz table.

I think he would give you a run for your money.

Paul S
27-03-2005, 01:08 PM
Paul you should know to ignore the ratings...


Yes, very true (especially with Juniors!)! I have found (occasionally the hard way) that over the last 3 years there is no such thing as an easy game at the Doeberl (indeed I lost to a player rated 1201 in round 2)!


The other side of the coin is rather evil: but I have to say it... Rather than your opponent playing at 1200, any chance you're playing at 600? :cool:

That's a joke, seeing you snapped me at the Canterbury Rapid, but I had to say it...

I probably played at around 600 in my round 2 game (which I lost). ;) :cool: Well, maybe not quite that bad in round 2, but it was my worst game in the 5 rounds I have played so far (BTW, have just won my round 5 game and am currently on 3.5/5 :) ).

I probably played at around 1400 in my round 4 game (the game in question). I was a bit nervous until my opponent lost his knight (while I'm not too fussed about what my rating is, I nonetheless during my game thought of all the rating points I could lose if I lost to a player rated 301!). :eek:

Bill Gletsos
27-03-2005, 04:52 PM
Have just got back to my hotel after a nice dinner.

In round 4 I played Tim Clark, who is rated 301.

When I saw the draw I immediately thought, hey, how could someone of 301 be on 1.5/3 like me?!

Anyway, I won my game (he lost a knight early on and then got discouraged), but he played a lot better than someone of (supposedly) 301! In fact, he beat a player of somewhere between 1300-1399 (I forget the exact rating) earlier in this tournament (which is why I had to end up playing him). After playing him, I thought Tim's "real" rating was more like 1100 to 1200 (rather than 301!).If you could see his rating history, you would not question how he can be rated at 301. :hmm:

bobby1972
27-03-2005, 05:16 PM
any results please

Paul S
27-03-2005, 06:14 PM
If you could see his rating history, you would not question how he can be rated at 301. :hmm:

:hmm: then how did he beat someone rated 1300-1399? :hmm:

P.S. Had a hard fought draw (3 hours game) against yet another underrated junior in round 6 (Jamie Kenmure, supposedly rated only 912). :hmm: How can a player rated 912 be on 3.5/5 (now 4/6)? :hmm:

Libby
27-03-2005, 06:30 PM
:hmm: then how did he beat someone rated 1300-1399? :hmm:

Did you see the game? Even very loftily rated :hmm: players around 1300 will sometimes play pretty poorly.

I didn't want to contradict you earlier (because Tim is a local boy) but Bill's right on the rating history. Hopefully this will be the start of a big leap forward for him.


P.S. Had a hard fought draw (3 hours game) against yet another underrated junior in round 6 (Jamie Kenmure, supposedly rated only 912). :hmm: How can a player rated 912 be on 3.5/5 (now 4/6)? :hmm:


The tail of the field is pretty long. Kayleigh is not playing very well and has 3. Each of those 3 were very easy wins against less experienced opposition (or just similarly having a bad day). In this sort of field you get a real yo-yo effect and people on 50% scores at the end of the tournament are going to have performed, in reality, at quite different levels.

They can't all be drastically under-rated but I think most juniors approaching 800+ are beginning to play a stronger game than their average peer. How fast they move onwards and upwards from there will depend on how often they can play the sort of very good game you are commenting on. They will stay under 1000 for a long time if 'good' wins are still fairly infrequent.

Good luck tomorrow - unless you play another under-rated ACT junior of course ;)

fools_mate
27-03-2005, 07:23 PM
cant you bludgers put up some results.
Preferably not the minor division :)

Ian Rout
27-03-2005, 07:37 PM
Had to leave while the round was still going so don't have the files but from memory (hence not guaranteed accurate) Rogers, Solomon and Wohl lead the Premier. Lane and Smerdon are half a point behind but Darryl is out of it.

Rafizadeh, Grcic and Jager share the lead in the Major and To is outright leader in the Minor.

Paul S
27-03-2005, 09:32 PM
They can't all be drastically under-rated but I think most juniors approaching 800+ are beginning to play a stronger game than their average peer. How fast they move onwards and upwards from there will depend on how often they can play the sort of very good game you are commenting on. They will stay under 1000 for a long time if 'good' wins are still fairly infrequent.

If a Junior who is around 500 points lower than me gives me a hard time in getting a win/draw (as was the case with 3 of my opponents) then they are underrated! :P

If a Junior who is around 1000 points lower than me plays like an 1100-1200 player (as was the case with one of my opponents) then they are underrated. :P


Good luck tomorrow - unless you play another under-rated ACT junior of course ;)

Hopefully I'll be playing an adult with a reliable rating. ;)

P.S. Libby, several BB people (including myself) are disappointed that we have not seen "the BB Personality of the Year" (ie yourself) at the Doeberl yet! I even wore a Neil Diamond T-shirt yesterday and a Rod Stewart T-shirt today just to impress you! ;) :lol: Hopefully you will make an apperance at the Doeberl tomorrow morning! :cool:

arosar
27-03-2005, 09:48 PM
Rej beat Johansen. Rogers and Smerdon drew.

Anyway, just got back from dinner with the boys from chesschat. The Exiled One is really lobbying hard. He shouted the crew to a carton of beer. Everyone was there, BD, kegless, Gough, Duff, Recherche, Candy, PaulS, gbc, JGB . . . We took a photo afterwards...You guys wanna see that?

The topic over dinner ranged quite a bit. Still talking about chesslover. We all agreed that Kaitlin is a transvestite. And the biggest question for the night is "who is eclectic?"

Finally, we have an award: the biggest snob for the entire weekend.

As for chess. I managed to beat TWM.

AR

Ian Rout
27-03-2005, 09:53 PM
Well I was almost right about the leaders (previous post edited) - progress results now up at

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2005DoeberlCup.htm

Rincewind
27-03-2005, 10:11 PM
Still talking about chesslover.

:bored: He's playing in ther premier isn't he? ;)


We all agreed that Kaitlin is a transvestite.

That's unkind. You just probably want her to be.


And the biggest question for the night is "who is eclectic?"

Friends. Just like in the Gary Numan song. :D


Finally, we have an award: the biggest snob for the entire weekend.

And the winner is...


As for chess. I managed to beat TWM.

Make sure you save that game in your personal scorebook and post it in the chesskit battles section. ;)

Bill Gletsos
28-03-2005, 12:14 AM
Did you see the game? Even very loftily rated :hmm: players around 1300 will sometimes play pretty poorly.Quite true.

I didn't want to contradict you earlier (because Tim is a local boy) but Bill's right on the rating history.Exactly. On the odd occasion he may well be able to play better than 300 but so far most of the time he hasnt.

Hopefully this will be the start of a big leap forward for him.We will have to wait and see.


The tail of the field is pretty long. Kayleigh is not playing very well and has 3. Each of those 3 were very easy wins against less experienced opposition (or just similarly having a bad day). In this sort of field you get a real yo-yo effect and people on 50% scores at the end of the tournament are going to have performed, in reality, at quite different levels.

They can't all be drastically under-rated but I think most juniors approaching 800+ are beginning to play a stronger game than their average peer. How fast they move onwards and upwards from there will depend on how often they can play the sort of very good game you are commenting on. They will stay under 1000 for a long time if 'good' wins are still fairly infrequent.And that describes James's play to date.


Good luck tomorrow - unless you play another under-rated ACT junior of course ;)He is playing Justin Chow. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
28-03-2005, 12:14 AM
:hmm: then how did he beat someone rated 1300-1399? :hmm: Maybe his opponent played like an idiot.
Here are his results since the June 2004 period.

2/05/2004 2004 ACT Under 16

1 Tamzin L Oliver 1061 0.0
2 Christopher Flood 813 0.0
3 Therese Tran 752 0.0
4 1.0 Bye
5 Thomas Ung 1293 0.0
6 Alana Chibnall Unr 0.0
Performance Rating = Below 480


29/08/2004 ACT U14 Championship 2004

1 0.5 Bye
2 0.5 Bye
3 Jake Henderson 804 0.0
4 Allen Setiabudi Unr 0.5
5 Aidan Lloyd 1068 0.0
6 Alana Chibnall 633 0.0
Performance Rating = 175


29/10/2004 2004 Belconnen Club Championships

6 Yijun Zhang Unr 0.0
7 Michael Brown 0.0 Forfeit
Performance Rating = Below 15

21/01/2005 2005 Australian Junior Under 12 Open

1 Luthien Russell 1289 0.0
2 Oliver Pope Unr 1.0
3 Van Nguyen 1055 0.0
4 Themis Murdock Unr 1.0
5 Noah Brash 844 0.0
6 Joe Sitch Unr 1.0
7 Jonathan Ren 1009 0.0
8 Vincent Horton Unr 0.0
9 William Sitch Unr 0.0
Nothing there to suggest he is stronger than his rating.


P.S. Had a hard fought draw (3 hours game) against yet another underrated junior in round 6 (Jamie Kenmure, supposedly rated only 912). :hmm: How can a player rated 912 be on 3.5/5 (now 4/6)? :hmm:I suspect all juniors you have trouble with must be underrated. :rolleyes:

Jamies results since Dec 2003 are:

13/07/2003 Victorian Junior Championships (Under 18)

1 Nicolas Dour 1510 0.0
2 Alexey Monin Unr 0.0
3 1.0 Bye
4 Artem Nikolayevsky 1392 0.0
5 Brendan Linke Unr 0.0
6 Steven Liu Unr 0.0
7 Michael Potter 0.0 Forfeit
Performance Rating = Below 617


12/04/2004 2004 Doeberl Cup Minor Division

1 Thomas Ung 1293 0.0
2 Kayleigh Smith 1065 0.0
3 Eugene Schon 1196 0.0
4 Dennish Qian 928 1.0
5 Aidan Lloyd 1007 0.0
6 Van Nguyen 1125 0.0
7 Sally Yu 768 1.0
Performance Rating = 861

8/03/2004 Ballarat Begonia Open

1 Andrew Fletcher 1757 0.0
2 David Kerksal 1439 0.0
3 Wendy Smith 1235 0.0
4 Lauren Ambrose Unr 0.0
5 Elizabeth Skyllas Unr 1.0
6 Reuben Fraser Unr 0.0
7 Laura Bell Unr 1.0
Performance Rating = 562

30/05/2004 Victorian Junior Championship (Under 18)

1 Nicolas Dour 1615 0.0
2 Jesse Jager 1822 0.0
3 Steven Hamley Unr 1.0
4 David Harutyunyan 535 0.0
5 Elena Galiabovitch 1170 0.0
6 Sasha Simonov Unr 0.0
7 Daniel Potter 376 0.5
8 Michael Potter 641 1.0
Performance Rating = 347


11/07/2004 University Open 2004

1 Andrew Short 1643 0.0
2 Cyril D Brown 1337 0.0
3 Valerie Moore Unr 1.0
4 Garth Whitney 1312 1.0
5 George Evans 1512 0.5
6 Steven Hill 1352 0.0
7 Tony Le 768 1.0
Performance Rating = 1256

13/06/2004 Victorian Open

1 John R Kable 1606 0.0
2 Alexander Malejewicz 1359 0.0
3 1.0 Bye
4 Ion Kloprogge 1436 0.5
5 Elliott Renzies 1411 0.0
6 Daniel Potter 880 1.0
7 Artem Nikolayevsky 0.0 Double Forfeit
Performance Rating = 1155


21/01/2005 2005 Australian Junior Under 18 Open

1 Rukman Vijayakumar 1768 0.0
2 Michael McGuirk 1475 0.0
3 Michael Griffiths Unr 1.0
4 Ric Kaspar 1451 0.0
5 Brody Brown Unr 1.0
6 David Behne-Smith 1421 0.0
7 Tom Priestley Unr 0.0
8 Alastair Dyer Unr 0.5
9 Toby Letcher Unr 0.5
10 Charlie Smith Unr 0.5
11 George Priestley Unr 0.0
Performance Rating = 783

5/01/2005 2005 Mt Buller Minor

1 Rob McCulloch 1442 0.0
2 Matthew Sweeney 1323 1.0
3 Lance Chiddy 931 0.0
4 Rex Simmonds 1550 0.0
5 Rory Chiddy Unr 1.0
6 Corey White 1208 0.0
7 Roland Eime 1434 0.5
8 Joe Marks 1481 0.0
Performance Rating = 1058
Based on the above there is nothing to suggest his rating is unreasonable.

antichrist
28-03-2005, 12:31 AM
I have seen NSWJCL players of 500 consistently beat "decent" adults in social games and do brilliant combos from obscure positions against players of 1500 adult range.

Libby
28-03-2005, 07:46 AM
We will have to wait and see.

Trying to be nice OK. :)


He is playing Justin Chow. :whistle:

I suspect he will find Justin very much underrated! :P

Paul S
28-03-2005, 10:44 AM
I suspect all juniors you have trouble with must be underrated. :rolleyes:

Indeed so. Indeed so. ;) :P :lol:

Paul S
28-03-2005, 10:51 AM
I suspect he will find Justin very much underrated! :P

Indeed I did. ;) :P

Have just finished my game against him.

He played better than his rating of 1245 would suggest.

I was very, very fortunate to get a draw against him. He was a bishop and pawn up in the endgame, but I managed to force a stalemate. Justin deserved to beat me, but I'm not complaining - its always nice to "snatch a draw from the jaws of defeat"! :D

4.5/7 for me. Not enough to win a prize, but I believe its my best Doeberl result to date (form memory I got 4/7 in 2003 and 3.5/7 in 2004). I'm reasonably content with 4.5/7. :)

Paul S
28-03-2005, 11:01 AM
Anyway, just got back from dinner with the boys from chesschat. The Exiled One is really lobbying hard. He shouted the crew to a carton of beer. Everyone was there, BD, kegless, Gough, Duff, Recherche, Candy, PaulS, gbc, JGB . . . We took a photo afterwards...You guys wanna see that?

Thankyou Matt for shouting everyone a beer last night at the "Chess Chat dinner". I reckon that for this generous gesture Matt's ban should be lifted immediately! :P :lol: Such generosity towards Chess Chat posters deserves to be rewarded! It was a nice beer too (one I hadn't had before) - Tooheys Pils.

I missed out on the photos though. :( I couldn't see a toilet in the restaurant, so I excused myself and left early (I was starting to get a bit desperate to relieve myself). So, sorry to disappoint anyone who wanted to see a picture of me! ;)

auriga
28-03-2005, 01:11 PM
Maybe his opponent played like an idiot.
Here are his results since the June 2004 period.
[code] 2/05/2004 2004 ACT Under 16

1 Tamzin L Oliver 1061 0.0
2 Christopher Flood 813 0.0
3 Therese Tran 752 0.0
4 1.0 Bye
5 Thomas Ung 1293 0.0
6 Alana Chibnall Unr 0.0
Performance Rating = Below 480



this is an appalling track record yet he takes paul s to the full 14 rounds.
what's going on?!

Rincewind
28-03-2005, 02:02 PM
this is an appalling track record yet he takes paul s to the full 14 rounds.
what's going on?!

Quantum improvement hypothesis strikes again. ;)

auriga
28-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Quantum improvement hypothesis strikes again. ;)

or maybe he just psych'ed him out.

pax
28-03-2005, 02:52 PM
If a Junior who is around 500 points lower than me gives me a hard time in getting a win/draw (as was the case with 3 of my opponents) then they are underrated! :P

If a Junior who is around 1000 points lower than me plays like an 1100-1200 player (as was the case with one of my opponents) then they are underrated. :P

Believe it or not, ratings are based on actual results, not on the impression of opponents who beat them!

Lots of really low rated players are capable of stringing together a few (or even quite a lot) of reasonable moves (even good ones). It only takes one (really) bad move to lose a game, and if you play one bad move in every game you play, well, you could end up rated 300!

Ian Rout
28-03-2005, 02:55 PM
STOP PRESS: Rogers and Wohl 6/7 (Rogers takes trophy on countback).

arosar
28-03-2005, 03:05 PM
Congrats to Belthasar too for coming equal first in minor. And we all finally met the great Libby.

AR

jenni
28-03-2005, 04:42 PM
"Chess Chat dinner". ;)

Humph - I didn't get invited......

eclectic
28-03-2005, 06:02 PM
Humph - I didn't get invited......

it seems i was there "in absentia" so to speak

as was kaitlin

eclectic

Mischa
28-03-2005, 06:30 PM
so James eventually did play in the major

Bereaved
28-03-2005, 06:30 PM
Congratulations to Igor Bjelobrk on his outstanding outright 3rd with 5.5/7 in the Premier at Doeberl. Igor is the Dentist!!

DoroPhil
28-03-2005, 06:40 PM
Congratulations to Igor Bjelobrk on his outstanding outright 3rd with 5.5/7 in the Premier at Doeberl. Igor is the Dentist!!

Why do you call him that?

Kaitlin
28-03-2005, 08:33 PM
Why do you call him that?

O8ch....its a a dentist :umhmmm:..:hurts:

arosar
28-03-2005, 08:54 PM
Back in Sydney. Hhmm...I can't upload the pics! Disaster. Bad luck.

Seems I have to be a premium member. Oh well, good night all. :(

AR

Alan Shore
28-03-2005, 08:58 PM
Back in Sydney. Hhmm...I can't upload the pics! Disaster. Bad luck.

Seems I have to be a premium member. Oh well, good night all. :(

AR

Oh, I suppose you can always post it on UCJ then? ;)




Humph - I didn't get invited......

We would have but you'd gone home with the family.. oh well, was still good to see you all!

Alan Shore
28-03-2005, 09:01 PM
Just like to say I loved the tourn, had some good games and was great to see some old friends and meet some of you who post here too. Thanks to Matt too for the brews last night, a very nice gesture.

Alan Shore
28-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention the dummy-spit from the 'Jamaican Chess Champ'... we were chatting a bit throughout the tourn, he was a good bloke I suppose but when he lost the last round he stormed outside and just lost it, screaming in the streets! I think JGB was trying to calm him down but it still took some time.. :confused:

paulb
28-03-2005, 09:56 PM
Some of the games are online now at http://www.chessnetwork.com/ncn/b/doeberl05.htm

Cheers - PaulB

jenni
28-03-2005, 10:23 PM
Back in Sydney. Hhmm...I can't upload the pics! Disaster. Bad luck.

Seems I have to be a premium member. Oh well, good night all. :(

AR

e-mail them to me and I'll upload them if you like.....

Kaitlin
28-03-2005, 10:31 PM
Back in Sydney. Hhmm...I can't upload the pics! Disaster. Bad luck.

Seems I have to be a premium member. Oh well, good night all. :(

AR
makes arosar a premium member by the power of mmm one of the 'moderators' --- make him our roveing pic taker guy.since he works for no pay hire him for life <- it from movie :classic:

Kaitlin
28-03-2005, 10:53 PM
Thankyou Matt for shouting everyone a beer last night at the "Chess Chat dinner". I reckon that for this generous gesture Matt's ban should be lifted immediately! :P :lol: Such generosity towards Chess Chat posters deserves to be rewarded! It was a nice beer too (one I hadn't had before) - Tooheys Pils.

I missed out on the photos though. :( I couldn't see a toilet in the restaurant, so I excused myself and left early (I was starting to get a bit desperate to relieve myself). So, sorry to disappoint anyone who wanted to see a picture of me! ;)

Thanks for the invite :(... still scrolling down .. might now be happyer when i get there

jenni
28-03-2005, 10:58 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention the dummy-spit from the 'Jamaican Chess Champ'... we were chatting a bit throughout the tourn, he was a good bloke I suppose but when he lost the last round he stormed outside and just lost it, screaming in the streets! I think JGB was trying to calm him down but it still took some time.. :confused:

I missed that one - it seemed to be a bit of a day for drama...

Felt a bit sorry for him, because he did well initially and then lost 2 in a row. I watched a bit of the middle part of the game and I thought Andrew looked better from fairly early on. Andrew is a very talented player, who should probably be around 1700, but he is quite inconsistent and plays brilliantly one tournament and then has a disaster the next. Interestingly Andrew is a junior who didn't get selected for NECG - really didn't get very many votes, because of some awful performances a few months ago. Ian Rogers made a point of mentioning him in prizegiving and saying maybe the selectors had got it a bit wrong...

I am totally exhausted after Doeberl - talked to so many people. :) Glad I wasn't trying to play as well.

arosar
29-03-2005, 10:22 AM
Alright, this is the best that I can do for the moment. These are images from rounds 5 to 7.

http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

Of course I took a lot more photos than this but space on Y! is also limited. Sorry, none of my customary commentary this time. But all I can say is that I did manage to ambush Bill Egan at some point to ask about the Doeberl book. He is back on to it apparently. He got sidetracked from it a decade back because he started (and finished then launched) a book about some jazz star from the 20's.

Quiz: which none titled player has received free entry into Doeberl for a numbers of years now? What is the reason? (No ACT poster is allowed to answer these questions).

AR

arosar
29-03-2005, 10:37 AM
I should add that the photos you see are web optimised and may not be suitable for print. I've also cropped them. If you want to print a pic, let me know and I will send you a high resolution version. Just PM me your email addy.

I'll create another album to cover rounds 1 - 4 tonight when I get home.

AR

Kerry Stead
29-03-2005, 10:37 AM
Alright, this is the best that I can do for the moment. These are images from rounds 5 to 7.

http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

Of course I took a lot more photos than this but space on Y! is also limited. Sorry, none of my customary commentary this time. But all I can say is that I did manage to ambush Bill Egan at some point to ask about the Doeberl book. He is back on to it apparently. He got sidetracked from it a decade back because he started (and finished then launched) a book about some jazz star from the 20's.

Quiz: which none titled player has received free entry into Doeberl for a numbers of years now? What is the reason? (No ACT poster is allowed to answer these questions).

AR

Nice photos Amiel - as usual.
Apologies I didn't go to the dinner ... I had made other plans and only heard about it mid-dinner (TWM mentioned it mid-pizza) and heard more about it when driving back to our hotel with kegless.
As for the 'quiz' ... the answer is Lloyd Fell ... becuase he's played in EVERY Doeberl Cup ever played (all 43 of them!)

arosar
29-03-2005, 10:39 AM
Very good Kerry. I was gobsmacked when Bill Egan told me about it. Actually, there is a funny story, sort of, that involved Lloyd, GM Johansen and the Jamaican Champ.

AR

Davidflude
29-03-2005, 12:42 PM
Congratulations to all who helped with the tournament. It was great the way so
much information was put on the web so quickly.

May I make a couple of suggestions.

1) Consider increasing the number of rounds. The Begonia has seven rounds over
three days. Maybe you could increase the number of rounds to nine.

2) Consider making it tougher to get in the Premier. My view is that entry should
be based on Australian ratings wherever possible Let nobody in with an Australian grading of less than 2000. Fide ratings should only be
used if the player has no Australian rating. I would only use ratings and ignore
titles. This would keep the turkeys out of the Premier.

3) Consider using "Starter" pairings in round one. We used them in a Sunday
tournament at Box Hill. Players are paired alphabetically. It shakes up the draw.

pax
29-03-2005, 12:50 PM
This would keep the turkeys out of the Premier.

Watch out, you're insulting prominent chatters there!

pax
29-03-2005, 12:52 PM
3) Consider using "Starter" pairings in round one. We used them in a Sunday
tournament at Box Hill. Players are paired alphabetically. It shakes up the draw.

Unbalances the draw, more like. It's also strictly against FIDE Swiss pairing rules. Not a good idea if you want it FIDE rated.

JGB
29-03-2005, 12:58 PM
Watch out, you're insulting prominent chatters there!

No he's not.

But 9 rounds in 4 days that would be pretty crazy.

Garvinator
29-03-2005, 01:15 PM
But 9 rounds in 4 days that would be pretty crazy.
Having nine rounds would require two rounds on the final day if you only wanted one day of three rounds ie 2,3,2,2.

I remember it being stated previously that one of the reasons for the schedule used at Doeberl is to allow the players to go home early on the last day. Having a second round would mean an extra days stay for some people.

Under the one round final day schedule, people can fly home on the same day if they choose to do so.

JGB
29-03-2005, 01:23 PM
Having nine rounds would require two rounds on the final day if you only wanted one day of three rounds ie 2,3,2,2.

I remember it being stated previously that one of the reasons for the schedule used at Doeberl is to allow the players to go home early on the last day. Having a second round would mean an extra days stay for some people.

Under the one round final day schedule, people can fly home on the same day if they choose to do so.

Not to mention mentally draining, three games in one day followed by two the next is full on.

eclectic
29-03-2005, 01:40 PM
Not to mention mentally draining, three games in one day followed by two the next is full on.

you would be looking here for 9 rounds at no more than 2 games per day if you were trying to set up a tournament ie swiss or r/r with norm possibilities

but how many foreign titled players are usually here around easter?

[ hawkeye, i told you to be quiet!]

as for us ratings-challenged being called turkeys i'd suggest that there'd be a few upwardly ranked players who are here in a small pond playing it safe

i don't see them rushing over to europe and going gobble gobble <is there a turkey smilie?> in the real turkey shoots

finally

jgb,

be proud of yourself for having a go!

;)

eclectic

jenni
29-03-2005, 02:02 PM
as for us ratings-challenged being called turkeys i'd suggest that there'd be a few upwardly ranked players who are here in a small pond playing it safe

i don't see them rushing over to europe and going gobble gobble <is there a turkey smilie?> in the real turkey shoots

finally

jgb,

be proud of yourself for having a go!

;)

eclectic

I agree with all this - there are always elitists trying to keep the under 2000 people out, but I think the current system is great. under 1600's are not allowed to play and that is fair enough, but after that why not let people have a go. If they aren't doing well, then they are not going to play anyone good and they just have a little tournament of their own at the bottom.

Both Gareth Oliver and Ben Lazarus could be viewed as turkeys (both under 2000), but both had excellent tournaments and took points off players hundreds of points above them. They finished =8th in the tournament!

Also the 7 rounds allows people from Sydney to drive up on the day and drive back on the last day. You are thus only up for 3 nights accommodation and don't have long drives at night time or have to take days off work in order to travel.

There really wouldn't be any socialising time if you had 3 games a day and I think there is not enough socialising in chess. :)

arosar
29-03-2005, 02:49 PM
If you're going to make this tourn into a 9-rounder, then you might as well make it a norm qualification event. As far as I can see, this is the only advantage of having 9 rounds. This means that a 3-gamer day is a no-no (I think). Thus - the premiere, at least, will have to span over 5-days (2-2-2-2-1).

AR

pballard
29-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Not to mention mentally draining, three games in one day followed by two the next is full on.

It's a weekender. It's meant to be full on.

I've always thought one round on the Monday is a waste of time. Why not finish Sunday night? Or cram 3 into Saturday and finish Sunday afternoon (i.e. 2-3-2 like Begonia).

In any case, I'm unlikely to increase my Doeberl tally in the near future, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

--
Peter

Ian Rout
29-03-2005, 03:38 PM
You can debate whether 1600 is the Turkey Point but setting the minimum for the Premier the same as the maximum for the Major, so there is no in-between zone, would be going a bit far - especially if an overseas player with FIDE2000+ and no FIDE rating is admitted but a local with FIDE2000+ is excluded because of their ACF rating. I think that one needs to go back to the drawing board for a severe makeover.

As for for accelerated pairing, well No. Nyet. Nein. How many other ways are there to say it? And certainly I don't see the point of arguing for a turkey-free tournament and simultaneously for turkey pairings.

Incidentally I count 24 first-round pairings in the Premier in which an ACF2000+ and an ACF2000- were paired, with the turkeys scoring three draws and three wins.

Garvinator
29-03-2005, 04:26 PM
As for for accelerated pairing, well No. Nyet. Nein. How many other ways are there to say it? And certainly I don't see the point of arguing for a turkey-free tournament and simultaneously for turkey pairings.
why accelerate pairings when the tournament is divisionalised anyways?

Kerry Stead
29-03-2005, 04:29 PM
May I make a couple of suggestions.

1) Consider increasing the number of rounds. The Begonia has seven rounds over three days. Maybe you could increase the number of rounds to nine.
Why increase the number of rounds? The Begonia is one large Open event, so there may be issues with players at the top getting close to 100% scores without playing each other, but the Doeberl is played in 3 separate divisions, so why is there a need? The Premier had around 64 players, which is a field that can sort itself out in 6 rounds, with an extra round just to make sure, so 7 rounds seems fine to me. The other divisions had slightly higher numbers, but no division was over 100, so not close to the point where you would have a 5 way tie with none of the leaders playing each other.


2) Consider making it tougher to get in the Premier. My view is that entry should be based on Australian ratings wherever possible Let nobody in with an Australian grading of less than 2000. Fide ratings should only be used if the player has no Australian rating. I would only use ratings and ignore titles. This would keep the turkeys out of the Premier.
1600 is a reasonable limit ... and remember FIDE have lowered the rating floor. As Jenni pointed out, there were some good performances by players U2000 this year, and that should happen every year ... why should someone be kept out of an event where they can be competitive all because of a few rating points?


3) Consider using "Starter" pairings in round one. We used them in a Sunday tournament at Box Hill. Players are paired alphabetically. It shakes up the draw.
Again, why is there a need to do such a thing? Do you think a West-Wohl pairing (on board 29) would be good for a round 1 pairing? One could have a potential draw from round 1 of Wallace, West, Wohl, Xie or some other similar 'horror run' if paired alphabetically ... Also remember that this is the country's biggest weekender, so why tinker with a format that obviously works?

JGB
29-03-2005, 04:37 PM
Again, why is there a need to do such a thing? Do you think a West-Wohl pairing (on board 29) would be good for a round 1 pairing? One could have a potential draw from round 1 of Wallace, West, Wohl, Xie or some other similar 'horror run' if paired alphabetically ... Also remember that this is the country's biggest weekender, so why tinker with a format that obviously works?

I so agree. :clap:
When you on a good thing why change it?

arosar
29-03-2005, 06:21 PM
Hi all!

Here are more pics: http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

AR

WhiteElephant
29-03-2005, 06:45 PM
Hi all!

Here are more pics: http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

AR

Excellent pics mate! I couldn't make it to Doeberl but it is almost like being there :)

I have an idea - what about putting together a pictorial 'Who's Who of the BB'?

jenni
29-03-2005, 06:47 PM
thanks Amiel - no wonder you didn't have too much time for chess. :)

ursogr8
29-03-2005, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Davidflude
3) Consider using "Starter" pairings in round one. We used them in a Sunday tournament at Box Hill. Players are paired alphabetically. It shakes up the draw.

<snip>


Again, why is there a need to do such a thing? Do you think a West-Wohl pairing (on board 29) would be good for a round 1 pairing? One could have a potential draw from round 1 of Wallace, West, Wohl, Xie or some other similar 'horror run' if paired alphabetically ... Also remember that this is the country's biggest weekender, so why tinker with a format that obviously works?

David Flude's post was not a serious suggestion. :(
He was referring to an odd pairing in a Rookies rapid round. :rolleyes:
No further remarks necessary. :hand:

starter

arosar
29-03-2005, 07:42 PM
thanks Amiel - no wonder you didn't have too much time for chess. :)

No worries . . .

Slight adjustment added to Album for rounds 1 - 2. Pic of Belthasar added.

Thanks to Gareth too for advice on Xbox.

AR

pballard
29-03-2005, 07:48 PM
Hi all!

Here are more pics: http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

AR

Excellent, excellent, excellent! Can I only ask that you add names?

arosar
29-03-2005, 07:49 PM
Excellent, excellent, excellent! Can I only ask that you add names?

OK...I was going to but I was busy at work. And now I am having dinner. Gimme an hour OK.

In the mean time, enjoy this little beauty:

[Event "Doeberl 2005"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.03.28"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Nichas, John"]
[Black "Rosario, Amiel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E97"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[EventDate "2005.03.25"]
[SourceDate "2005.03.28"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Nh5 10. Ne1 Nf4 11. Nd3 Nxe2+ 12. Qxe2 f5 13. f3 f4 14. c5 g5 15. Bd2 Rf6 16. Rfc1 a6 17. cxd6 cxd6 18. Ne1 Ng6 19. a4 h5 20. a5 g4 21. Na4 Nh4 22. Nb6 gxf3 23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Nxf3 Nxf3+ 25. Qxf3 Rc2 26. Rc1 Rxc1+ 27. Bxc1 Qc7 28. Ba3 Qc2 29. h3 Rg6 30. Qf2 Qxe4 0-1

After his 9. b4, my opponent offered a draw. I replied, "I love this variation. Let's play a few moves." Smirnov and I continue to argue over it in lightning; it's just sooo much fun to play. But I'm not sure if 23. Rxc8 is exact. What do youse think? John said he panicked about my attack on the K-side, but I actually wasn't certain meself.

AR

Alan Shore
29-03-2005, 07:50 PM
Excellent, excellent, excellent! Can I only ask that you add names?

Well Amiel has a photo of all of us together (about 10 or so BB members), perhaps Amiel is still working on posting it, hopefully soon. :)

Garvinator
29-03-2005, 08:05 PM
But I'm not sure if 23. Rxc8 is exact. What do youse think? John said he panicked about my attack on the K-side, but I actually wasn't certain meself.

AR
my trusty mate fritz, a german guy ;) says that Rxc8 is fine. White then erred by playing Nxf3. He reckons that Qf2 is ok, better than Nxf3.

pballard
29-03-2005, 08:07 PM
OK...I was going to but I was busy at work. And now I am having dinner. Gimme an hour OK.


No rush. For over 10 years most non-Adelaide players have just been names to me. I can wait a few more days :)

Mischa
29-03-2005, 08:18 PM
None of my boy...but great pics. Thanks

Libby
29-03-2005, 08:24 PM
No rush. For over 10 years most non-Adelaide players have just been names to me. I can wait a few more days :)

We can't be toooo demanding! Chessplayers are still waiting patiently for those Mt Buller photos etc :wall:

arosar
29-03-2005, 08:26 PM
None of my boy...but great pics. Thanks

I have noidea who he is or who you are.

Incidentally, the only warning I had that Libby was in the vicinity was when I heard a loud voice scream, "Kayleigh!" Soooo intimidating!

AR

arosar
29-03-2005, 08:29 PM
my trusty mate fritz, a german guy ;) says that Rxc8 is fine. White then erred by playing Nxf3. He reckons that Qf2 is ok, better than Nxf3.

If I wanted to ask him gray, I would've done so myself. Anyway, I was thinking of dropping my a8-rook for the attack. But, as I said, I didn't know how to continue: just get my pieces near his King, that was it.

AR

shaun
29-03-2005, 09:43 PM
An Organiser/Arbiters Perspective

I thought this years event went very well. There were no huge problems, just little ones which were fixed pretty quickly (I hope).
The entry was down about 7% on the previous year. 206 players was still pretty good and continues the run of >200 entrants (220 last year, 210 the year before). The major reason for the drop was the fact that easter did not fall in the school holidays and a number of juniors (mainly in the 16 to 18 year age group) had assignments and exams to complete and study for.
The Premier was especially strong this year with 2GM's, 6 IM's and 2 WIM's. The fact that IM Guy West was only seeded 10th and IM Mirko Rujevic 13th showed the depth of the field. All but one of last years men's Olympiad team played (Zhao had study commitments) but sadly none of the womens team did (although Ingela Erikson was an invaluable helper during the tournament). And according to Swiss Perfect, both Aleks Wohl and Ian Rogers had 2600+ performances.
Given the strength and depth of the field it was hardly surprising that the last round games were hard fought with the decisive games on Boards 1 and 2 going right into the ending.
And apart from some trouble with the new fangled DGT's the whole event went off without a hitch.
Both the Major and the Minor had dramatic finishes and both ended in 4 way ties for 1st. Clearly nerves played a big role in the last round with Bd 1 in the Major ending in a quick draw (much to the relief of both Shervin Rafizadeh and Jess Jaeger) while Michael Morris leap-frogged Milan Grcic to also join the leaders. Almost unnoticed was Ballarat stalwart Bas Van Riel who made it a 4 way split with a win on board 3.
The minor also had its drama with Anthony To losing a very quick final game, after winning the previous 6 rounds. This allowed Quan Nguyen to join him in 1st place, and as the round wore on, Andrew Brown and Dion Sampson also moved to 6 points. Of interest was Reza Rafizadeh who narrowly missed a prize scoring 5.5/7. Both Reza (Shervin's father) and Quan Nguyen (Van Nguyen's father) only took up serious play becuase their children became interested in chess!
What was also interesting was the fact that the top seed for each tournament (Rogers, Rafizadeh and Sampson) all managed to finish in 1st place (albeit shared), which I believe is the first time this has happened since the tournament split into 3 divisions.
The lightning was well attended although it ran longer than I had hoped as the power cord was accidently pulled out of the laptop. And no, it wasn't Paul B who did it. Many thanks must go to all the players who paitently waited while I asked them for their results from rounds 2,3 & 4.
It was good to see so many BB regulars at the event, and doing well in the tournaments.
I hope everyone had an enjoyable time. And before I finish thanks must go to my fellow arbiters Cathy Rogers and Mark Hummel, the organising team of Roger McCart, Paul Dunn, Shun Ikeda and Denis Jessop, and the helpers on the weekend including Mirabelle Guo, Ingela Erikson, Jim Flood, Jenni Oliver plus anyone else I may have missed.

alexmdc
29-03-2005, 10:25 PM
Cool tournament, lots of fun, and great photos by arosar. (The kid in the last photo in the Rds 1-2 album is Eugene Schon. He gave me a very tough game in Rd 4 and clearly outperformed his 1300 rating!)

Losing in Round 1 wasnt part of the plan for me, and I very nearly lost in rd 2 until Chris Nikolaou let me out of jail. After that was it was OK, plenty of tough games and lots of fun! I think what's great about Doeberl is that so many players stay in the Forrest Inn nextdoor, so they hang around for a long time after the games are finished making it a very social tournament.

Oh, and I know who pulled the power cord out of the laptop during the lightning... :whistle:

JGB
29-03-2005, 10:48 PM
Oh, and I know who pulled the power cord out of the laptop during the lightning... :whistle:

Skills mate, it allowed me and Belthasar to duck away and refill out pint glasses in between rounds. :clap:

arosar
29-03-2005, 10:53 PM
Excellent, excellent, excellent! Can I only ask that you add names?

Done, as best I can.

I have updated with new pics too including the post-dinner shot of Chesschatters.

AR

Alan Shore
29-03-2005, 10:59 PM
Done, as best I can.

I have updated with new pics too including the post-dinner shot of Chesschatters.

AR

Awesome, great work Amiel!

*The* Photo:

http://img97.exs.cx/img97/6745/ebd74jv.jpg

(l-r): JGB, Garethbcharles, Matt Sweeney, AR, Recherche, Belthasar, Goughfather, DuffMcKagan, Kegless and Candy-Cane (absent in the bathroom: PaulS).

P.S. Did 'chesslover' take the photo? That's only for us to know! ;)

jenni
29-03-2005, 11:10 PM
Both Reza (Shervin's father) and Quan Nguyen (Van Nguyen's father) only took up serious play becuase their children became interested in chess!
I can remember Reza telling me in 1997? at the ANU Primary Schools Champs, when a very little Shervin was playing an even tinier Gareth, that he (Reza) had been the chess Champion of Iran. So in Reza's case it must be that he returned to chess because of Shervin. Quan was definitely a novice, because I beat him at the ANU Open in 2002.




I hope everyone had an enjoyable time..

My family certainly did - thank-you to you for all your hard work.

JGB
29-03-2005, 11:18 PM
Is the photo gone or is it just my computer?

Rincewind
29-03-2005, 11:55 PM
Is the photo gone or is it just my computer?

It's just you, dude.

Libby
30-03-2005, 06:56 AM
I have noidea who he is or who you are.

Incidentally, the only warning I had that Libby was in the vicinity was when I heard a loud voice scream, "Kayleigh!" Soooo intimidating!

AR

Don't forget that was after the event. I may occasionally still want to holler that name whilst play is underway but I can usually be restrained!

It's a "mother's" voice. Comes with lots of practice (although I was the example used for vocal projection in my drama class at high school :eek: ).

I assure people i find it easy to have eyes in the back of my head at junior events. If your own children are somewhat on the naughty side of the radar, you know exactly what to expect from everyone else's!.

Rincewind
30-03-2005, 07:24 AM
P.S. Did 'chesslover' take the photo? That's only for us to know! ;)

If he did it would explain the lean to the right. ;)

Spiny Norman
30-03-2005, 07:48 AM
I have updated with new pics too including the post-dinner shot of Chesschatters.

Anyone want to start a "rogues gallery" thread .... might be fun to see everyone's mug shot!

ursogr8
30-03-2005, 08:05 AM
None of my boy...but great pics. Thanks


Note to....noidea

But if you
left mouse click on this magical link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/captain.htm)
you will be able to see the 'nipper'. :)

starter

BBlooksee
30-03-2005, 09:39 AM
i caught a cold at doeberl this year and am home sick :sad: . i think it was because there was no air coming into the main hall . was the air conditioning was busted . it was fun anyways . someone told me deoberl used to be one big swiss . i think i would like that better than having 3 different tournaments . i know too about trevor stannings idea of pairing the first few rounds in groups . that would fix junk rounds in a giant doeberl swiss . :cool:

Trent Parker
30-03-2005, 09:53 AM
It's just you, dude.its not just him i can't see it either. i just get a red x.

Alan Shore
30-03-2005, 10:13 AM
Wasn't loading for me either, now re-hosted on a site that allows direct linking.

(i.e. image now shows on previous page).

Trent Parker
30-03-2005, 10:56 AM
I see it now!

JGB
30-03-2005, 12:19 PM
We should use that Chesschat After Dinner photo for the next Photo Caption Contest.

pax
30-03-2005, 12:45 PM
I can remember Reza telling me in 1997? at the ANU Primary Schools Champs, when a very little Shervin was playing an even tinier Gareth, that he (Reza) had been the chess Champion of Iran. So in Reza's case it must be that he returned to chess because of Shervin. Quan was definitely a novice, because I beat him at the ANU Open in 2002.

Methinks he might have been yanking your chain. With more than 70 players rated over 2200, I suspect that an Iran champion (even of many years ago) would not be playing in the *minor*.

Unless of course we are using the Guru definition of "champion" (perhaps he was the handicap transfer blitz champion).

pballard
30-03-2005, 12:46 PM
Done, as best I can.

I have updated with new pics too including the post-dinner shot of Chesschatters.

AR

Thanks again!

jenni
30-03-2005, 02:37 PM
Methinks he might have been yanking your chain. With more than 70 players rated over 2200, I suspect that an Iran champion (even of many years ago) would not be playing in the *minor*.

Unless of course we are using the Guru definition of "champion" (perhaps he was the handicap transfer blitz champion).


Well you always take these things with a grain of salt - it is very easy to claim to be a champion when you are half way across the world. (see Jamaican champion). However he was a very competent chess player and definitely did not learn after Shervin started playing (unlike many of the other chess parents around Canberra). He coached Shervin for a number of years. At that point Gareth was the top primary school player and he and Shervin were both the board 1 players in their teams. Reza used to watch Gareth and study his openings and Shervin did beat him in one primary schools comp. After that of course Shervin started working with Jeff Suptut and did a huge amount of work on his own, to become the very strong player he is today.

JGB
30-03-2005, 02:41 PM
WHAT! Your doubting Pablo my man, is not the Jamican Chess Champion?! Noway!!! haha

jenni
30-03-2005, 04:21 PM
WHAT! Your doubting Pablo my man, is not the Jamican Chess Champion?! Noway!!! haha
:lol:

arosar
30-03-2005, 04:34 PM
The only sad thing about this Doeberl is that now it's over and I gotta bloody wait another 12 months! It's soo much fun being there. I think in about 5 years, it will surely hit 300 participants I think. How could you not be there? It's a tournament that everyone should grow old with.

Like Mr Fell. I actually ran into him yesterday. Just coming back from the pictures he was he said. As it turns out, we're actually neighbours - sort of. He lives in the suburb next to mine. When you meet Fell you can't avoid being bombarded with his past exploits. On the spot he was telling me how in 1978 he stopped Ian Rogers from winning the Doeberl. Good stuff. In that pic with him sitting across GM Johansen he was going on about some bloke named Frank Crowl or someone rather. The stories this man can yap on about. Wonderful!

Oh btw, a word about ratings. During Doeberl, round about 11'ish in the night (note how cool I am ishing), a mate of mine rings me and starts tellin' me about his rating, how it's so low. he feels bad cos other people judge him on that. I said to him I said, look mate....ratings are ratings. Just a bloody number. Mate, you love chess, that's it. That's what matters. He starts telling me about in a hard position he can't think straight, gets all nervous doesn't know what to do; maybe he should give up chess. I said to him I said, mate, that's like falling in love isn't it? You get all tense and confused. More than falling in love with chess you have to also fall in love with your position: caress it, cuddle it, care for it, blah...blah... blah. See what I'm saying.

Anyway, dunno what I'm bloody saying now. I just started writing and now here I am. See youse all when I get home.

AR

klyall
30-03-2005, 10:33 PM
Hi all!

Here are more pics: http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

AR

Thanks for the terrific photos! :clap: The photo of Eugene is very typical when he is concentrating.

Recherché
31-03-2005, 12:38 AM
So my first Doeberl Cup eh? Had a great time. Happy with 4/7 too, especially after recent form. Had a stack of really fun games, and the final one on Monday morning was probably the highlight; there's nothing more exciting than a simultaneous mating race. Managed one really impressive blunder too, though not one to top my queen-hang in Buller, alas. :D

It was great meeting/seeing lots of people who had mostly just been names, bulletin board personalities, or authors (doesn't Gary Lane have a wonderful voice?) to me previously.

I hope very much to be back next year. :)


Recherche fell to the mighty 9 year old Yi Yuan (even all Recherche's minties couldn't save him :) )

Well, it's moments like these you need them. ;)

My memory may be off here, but I believe I missed a very tricky perpetual check opportunity in that game. It was a great deal of fun.


cant you bludgers put up some results.
Preferably not the minor division :)

Why are people never interested in the results of lower rated divisions? I think they're worth following, and in fact they're often more exciting since the games are less predictable. :)


Humph - I didn't get invited......

You'd gone home with the kids by the time we'd gotten the ball rolling. There was a "where's Jenni?" moment, but we were too late! :(


Quiz: which none titled player has received free entry into Doeberl for a numbers of years now? What is the reason? (No ACT poster is allowed to answer these questions).

I was told that a certain player had free entry because he'd played in every Doeberl Cup. But I can't recall his name. :hmm:

(this got answered later in the thread anyway)


I think there is not enough socialising in chess. :)

I agree with this. Actually the socializing was a big highlight for me both at Mt Buller and especially at Doeberl. :)


someone told me deoberl used to be one big swiss . i think i would like that better than having 3 different tournaments . i know too about trevor stannings idea of pairing the first few rounds in groups . that would fix junk rounds in a giant doeberl swiss . :cool:

If you're referring to the "two or more separate divisions with intermingling" idea, it's for the entire tournament, not just a few rounds. In effect a sort of permanent acceleration. It means Doeberl would be ineligible for FIDE rating. It would also, in my opinion, make the allocation of prizes in the lower two divisions less fair. The system works well at Box Hill, but is not appropriate for an event like Doeberl.

You can't make Doeberl one big swiss without increasing the number of rounds. 7 is not enough for 200+ players. Ignoring for the moment the problems associated with increasing the number of rounds (which are significant), it's still a terrible idea. What is gained from having GMs playing a 1500 rated player in the first round? I bet that's what would have happened if you'd combined all the fields from this year into one swiss.

Of course, if they tried to collapse Doeberl into one tournament again there might be a mass exodus of players and fewer titled players turning up, solving those problems, but that hardly seems desirable does it?

Recherché
31-03-2005, 12:41 AM
*The* Photo:

Hey, that turned out really well. It's actually a good photo of me, too, which is a little surprising. The other one in the album with me in it isn't bad either. Kudos either to arosar's camera or to his photography and editing skills. I suspect dodgy ones may have been culled. :D

Recherché
31-03-2005, 12:43 AM
http://photos.yahoo.com/chessafficionado

Great job, Amiel!

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 08:02 AM
<snip>
It (divisions with intermingling...starter insert) would also, in my opinion, make the allocation of prizes in the lower two divisions less fair.

Rob

This contention of yours is a bit debatable.
Take for example the rather simple question....who was the best U1600 player at Doeberl.
Was it the winner of the Minor prize? (Who incidentally, played no player rated 10 points stronger than himself).
Or was it one of the U1600's in the Major?

You are making the contention about fairness; can you defend it. Or is it rather more accurate to say...we don't know who the best performed U1600 player at 2005 Doeberl was; but someone won that prize anyway? Is that fairness? (Apologies to the individual winner in this case... a regular poster here...and no doubt a richly deserved winner. My comment is simply generic...not directed at the individual).

If you flick back to page 1 of this thread to look at Ian Rout's link to the tournament flyer (http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/miscellaneous/2005DoeberlCupInfo.htm) you could gain the impression from the red text that the intention of the tournament organisers was to find (and reward) the best U1600 player.

starter

Recherché
31-03-2005, 09:56 AM
Rob

This contention of yours is a bit debatable.
Take for example the rather simple question....who was the best U1600 player at Doeberl.
Was it the winner of the Minor prize? (Who incidentally, played no player rated 10 points stronger than himself).
Or was it one of the U1600's in the Major?

Since the issue is one of fairness, the fact that players choose which division to play in at Doeberl means that your question is irrelevant. The best performing U1600 players who chose to play in the Minor were rewarded with the relevant prizes.

The problem with the box hill system is that the players leading one of the lower divisions tend to play players from the division above for most of the latter half of the tournament. By the end of the tournament, this can mean that the top players in a division have never played each other, which makes for an unreliable prize distribution. This is one of the main reasons why there is a relationship between the number of players and the number of rounds you need in a regular swiss.

Additionally, often a player that is a half point behind the leaders in a lower division will get a MUCH easier game in the final round - making a leapfrog likely.

Personally I believe that quarantining the divisions in the final round (B division only plays B division) actually solves a lot of this unfairness.

But the problem of getting the tournament FIDE rated would still apply.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 10:36 AM
Since the issue is one of fairness, the fact that players choose which division to play in at Doeberl means that your question is irrelevant. The best performing U1600 players who chose to play in the Minor were rewarded with the relevant prizes.

Rob

I am not so sure that the question of who was the best performed U1600 player at 2005 Doeberl is irrelevant. I look at the flyer (link provided in my earlier post) and it appears to me that the Doeberl organisers had some objective in mind when they rewarded the MINOR winner with $600 (which is well in excess of rating group prizes like the U1700 or the U1800. I can only speculate what this objective was. Perhaps it was an inducement to keep the U1600 turkeys away from the elite Major players...who knows? But an inducement it is; and it comes at a cost of enjoyment to the U1600 player. In this case, the eventual winner had to forgo the opportunity to play against quite a number of players stronger than himself (who were all in the MAJOR field).
Perhaps you might want to speculate on why the U1600 player is singled out for the reward of playing for $600 whereas the U1700 is confronted with quite a different choice.

regards
starter




The problem with the box hill system is that the players leading one of the lower divisions tend to play players from the division above for most of the latter half of the tournament. By the end of the tournament, this can mean that the top players in a division have never played each other, which makes for an unreliable prize distribution. This is one of the main reasons why there is a relationship between the number of players and the number of rounds you need in a regular swiss.

Additionally, often a player that is a half point behind the leaders in a lower division will get a MUCH easier game in the final round - making a leapfrog likely.

Personally I believe that quarantining the divisions in the final round (B division only plays B division) actually solves a lot of this unfairness.

But the problem of getting the tournament FIDE rated would still apply.

Perhaps this could be debated in a non-Doeberl thread. Post it somewhere else and I will comment.

Garvinator
31-03-2005, 10:44 AM
The problem with the box hill system is that the players leading one of the lower divisions tend to play players from the division above for most of the latter half of the tournament. By the end of the tournament, this can mean that the top players in a division have never played each other, which makes for an unreliable prize distribution.
I dont quite agree with this. It could be argued that if the players in rating prize contention have played a similiar strength field, then they have played a similiar field and so the prize awarding is fair.




Additionally, often a player that is a half point behind the leaders in a lower division will get a MUCH easier game in the final round - making a leapfrog likely.
And the lower point scoring player in the final round would most likely have played one of the higher rated players earlier in the tournament and scored zero. Therefore the players on the higher score need to play a player of similiar standard in the final round to make sure that as many players as possible have played opposition of similiar strength.


Personally I believe that quarantining the divisions in the final round (B division only plays B division) actually solves a lot of this unfairness.
Disagree for the reason stated above.

shaun
31-03-2005, 10:50 AM
Rob

I am not so sure that the question of who was the best performed U1600 player at 2005 Doeberl is irrelevant. I look at the flyer (link provided in my earlier post) and it appears to me that the Doeberl organisers had some objective in mind when they rewarded the MINOR winner with $600 (which is well in excess of rating group prizes like the U1700 or the U1800. I can only speculate what this objective was. Perhaps it was an inducement to keep the U1600 turkeys away from the elite Major players...who knows? But an inducement it is; and it comes at a cost of enjoyment to the U1600 player. In this case, the eventual winner had to forgo the opportunity to play against quite a number of players stronger than himself (who were all in the MAJOR field).
Perhaps you might want to speculate on why the U1600 player is singled out for the reward of playing for $600 whereas the U1700 is confronted with quite a different choice.

regards
starter


But the Under 1700 player is ultimately playing for $1000. And the prizes in the Minor help attract the large numbers of players which make the tournament a success. And Rob's observations are correct while yours seem odd.

Rafizadeh
31-03-2005, 10:58 AM
While im here just thought id quickly correct a few things Jenni said,
why would my dad say he is chess champion of iran? saying he said that was just plain stupid. Theres a big differences saying you were a chess champion IN iran and chess champion OF iran. Being a chess champion IN iran can mean anything from your local club to your university to your district.

And secondly why would my dad study garaths openings? We were both little kids who had just started chess and hardly knew any openings. Does watching a game mean you are studying people's openings, in that case i must have studied the openings of half the people playing in the minor...

So for future reference dont try and make my dad look like an idiot and dont talk about my dad like you know him because you dont. Plain and Simple.

jenni
31-03-2005, 11:40 AM
While im here just thought id quickly correct a few things Jenni said,
why would my dad say he is chess champion of iran? saying he said that was just plain stupid. Theres a big differences saying you were a chess champion IN iran and chess champion OF iran. Being a chess champion IN iran can mean anything from your local club to your university to your district.

And secondly why would my dad study garaths openings? We were both little kids who had just started chess and hardly knew any openings. Does watching a game mean you are studying people's openings, in that case i must have studied the openings of half the people playing in the minor...

So for future reference dont try and make my dad look like an idiot and dont talk about my dad like you know him because you dont. Plain and Simple.

Dear Shervin

I think it is wonderful that you support your Dad, as any mother would want her child to.

Of course you are right - he might have said Champion in Iran, rather than of Iran. I would have been terribly impressed with either.

No-one is trying to make your Dad look like an idiot - I was merely pointing out the things that led me to believe he was not a novice at chess who started playing after you started playing. He was clearly a competent chess player when you were 10 or 11 years of age. This is unlike people like myself, Tony, Quan Nguyen, Michael Brown and all the other mug parents in town.

So don't over react - it is actually a compliment to say he was a good player in Iran.

As far as studying Gareth's games go - he was very keen that your team should do well, when you played for Red Hill all those years ago. He used to coach you - I can remember him sitting at Deakin Soccer Club before one primary school comp coaching you. While you might not have known any openings Gareth did - can't remember his white, although the Colle was one of his early ones. He was definitely a French player by then. Once again I can't see anything wrong with Reza training you to help you win games. Far from making him look stupid, I think all my remarks make him look like a very good chess player.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 11:40 AM
But the Under 1700 player is ultimately playing for $1000.

hi Shaun
Have to agree with this sentence of yours, since it was on the flyer. But then my post did not say that he wasn't playing for $1000 (sorry about the clumsy double-negative)



And the prizes in the Minor help attract the large numbers of players which make the tournament a success.
And a huge success it is...hence my reluctance to enter the thread 'Doeberl...what I would change'.
If the organisers intention was offer $600 to attract the U1600's then I would not argue against that. Entirely a logical marketing decision.


And Rob's observations are correct while yours seem odd.

I suppose I am allowing myself to be swayed by too much knowledge about the Minor winner. We know he particularly enjoys the opportunity to 'knock-off' players stronger than himself. In the Doeberl Minor he did not have that opportunity for enjoyment. Sure,...that was his choice at the point of entry. And, sure, ... he went home with a healthy cheque.
But it just struck me as less-than-best that that particular player got no opponents higher than his own rating.

regards
starter

ps Now that I have seen how our QLD mercenary has been xxxxxxed, I am a bit inclined to put my finger on the DELETE_post button. ;)

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 12:36 PM
Rob

This contention of yours is a bit debatable.
Take for example the rather simple question....who was the best U1600 player at Doeberl.
Was it the winner of the Minor prize? (Who incidentally, played no player rated 10 points stronger than himself).
Or was it one of the U1600's in the Major?

You are making the contention about fairness; can you defend it. Or is it rather more accurate to say...we don't know who the best performed U1600 player at 2005 Doeberl was; but someone won that prize anyway? Is that fairness? (Apologies to the individual winner in this case... a regular poster here...and no doubt a richly deserved winner. My comment is simply generic...not directed at the individual).What individual winner of the Minor. There was a 4 way tie for first in the Minor.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 01:14 PM
^
Just a typo....an individual winner



Congrats to Belthasar too for coming equal first in minor.

AR

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 01:21 PM
^
Just a typo....an individual winnerHow can the word individual be a typo. It isnt like mistyping 1 or 2.

Just admit you were wrong.

Recherché
31-03-2005, 01:29 PM
I dont quite agree with this. It could be argued that if the players in rating prize contention have played a similiar strength field, then they have played a similiar field and so the prize awarding is fair.

Ratings prizes don't work the same way as divisional prizes.


And the lower point scoring player in the final round would most likely have played one of the higher rated players earlier in the tournament and scored zero.

This isn't true. It would be true if they were playing off for ratings prizes in a regular swiss, but the acceleration at Box Hill makes for quite a different scenario.

Take the example of the recent Autumn Cup (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0502fac/crosstable.htm) at Box Hill.

Elena Galiabovich played five A division players on her way to a division-winning five and a half points. Shaun Fielder played one A division player (who was rated lower than all but one one of Elena's A division opponents) on his way to 4.5 points. If he'd won his last game, he would have leaped up to tie for first place in the division.

Additionally, none of the top five players in B division played each other.

Contrast to the quarantining in the final round of the 2004 Club Championship (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2004/e0404fcc/round9.htm).

Quarantining the B-division players in the final round at least ensures that the players competing for the prizes play each other to determine who gets them.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 01:44 PM
How can the word individual be a typo. It isnt like mistyping 1 or 2.

Just admit you were wrong.

I said I was wrong.
I have pasted in AR's post...see previous post.
I have been working from Ian's page (http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2005DoeberlCup.htm) .
The results are clear.

The point is valid........ BD played 7 rounds and won 6 against folk who were rated lower than him. All this is in a field of 200+, where BD was probably just under the median. Given that he likes to play stronger players it was an interesting clash of objectives.

starter

arosar
31-03-2005, 01:47 PM
This $600 first prize in the minor has already provoked quite a lot of discussion elsewhere. The drift of that discussion is unmentionable.

Actually, I just learned a few minutes ago that some years earlier, the prize used to be something like $900! And a player rated 1595 won it.

AR

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 02:00 PM
This $600 first prize in the minor has already provoked quite a lot of discussion elsewhere. The drift of that discussion is unmentionable.

Actually, I just learned a few minutes ago that some years earlier, the prize used to be something like $900! And a player rated 1595 won it.

AR

hi AR
Good afternoon.
Loved your pics........tks from those of us not there.

I hope you don't regard me as critical of the $600. I am completely convinced by Shaun's advice in that it attracts players...a good thing done by marketing. And all winners are meritorious.

regards
starter

shaun
31-03-2005, 02:06 PM
This $600 first prize in the minor has already provoked quite a lot of discussion elsewhere. The drift of that discussion is unmentionable.

Actually, I just learned a few minutes ago that some years earlier, the prize used to be something like $900! And a player rated 1595 won it.

AR

We have never reduced prizes in the Doeberl Cup (at least to my memory).
The story you heard may have been when there were 2 events, the Open and the Reserves (U/1800). I do recall Joe Marks winning it one year with 6/7, having lost his first round game, but I do not know what his rating was then.

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 02:14 PM
I said I was wrong.
I have pasted in AR's post...see previous post.
I have been working from Ian's page (http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2005DoeberlCup.htm) .
The results are clear.

The point is valid........ BD played 7 rounds and won 6 against folk who were rated lower than him.Given he was top seed all his opponents had to be lower rated than him. He performed at 1736 a 145 points above his rating. Ian Rogers in the Premier performed at 2683, 42 points above his rating.
Of course you could take this rubbish of yours to the extreme and say that Ian Rogers had exactly the same problem in the Premier because he had no one rated above him.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 02:26 PM
Given he was top seed all his opponents had to be lower rated than him. He performed at 1736 a 145 points above his rating. Ian Rogers in the Premier performed at 2683, 42 points above his rating.
Of course you could take this rubbish of yours to the extreme and say that Ian Rogers had exactly the same problem in the Premier because he had no one rated above him.

Listen Bill
I in no way hinted that I would extrapolate to the Premier Division. So that is one strawman you can knock yourself out on.

And generalised generic slurs like 'rubbish' are not very useful. Just focus on my sentences and say which one you want to debate.

no regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 02:34 PM
Listen Bill
I in no way hinted that I would extrapolate to the Premier Division. So that is one strawman you can knock yourself out on.You raised the issue of those at the top of the U1600 division not having the opportunity to play people above them and pointed out that BD out rated all his opponents. The same is true for Ian Rogers. As such its entirely valid to extrapolate to the premier division.


And generalised generic slurs like 'rubbish' are not very useful. Just focus on my sentences and say which one you want to debate.Perhaps you have difficulty determing which exact rubbish it was but I thought it was fairly obvious what rubbish I was referring to. Its the rubbish that you highlighted with regards BD not being able to play players rated above him and that somehow that circumstance is undesireable/unreasonable.

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 03:04 PM
You raised the issue of those at the top of the U1600 division not having the opportunity to play people above them and pointed out that BD out rated all his opponents. The same is true for Ian Rogers. As such its entirely valid to extrapolate to the premier division.

There is an obvious difference.
BD has 81 (from memory) players from his rating to 1999, in Doeberl Events. By the way Doeberl events are offered (3 division, no intermingling), BD cannot play any of these 81...which he enjoys playing.
Ian has zero above him.
If you cannot see the difference then no wonder you put such a strawman.

Doeberl is a wonderful, successful event. And I am not advocating move to a different configuration of Divisions etc. But surely we can look at the plusses and minuses, of what transpired, without suffering your accusing finger of 'rubbish' on extrapolations that you make.


Perhaps you have difficulty determing which exact rubbish it was but I thought it was fairly obvious what rubbish I was referring to. Its the rubbish that you highlighted with regards BD not being able to play players rated above him and that somehow that circumstance is undesireable/unreasonable.

You may have had the benefit of a conversation with BD. You may know whether he desired 7 games against lower rated players.
He was required to choose Major or Minor.
There were obvious attractions in both.
But till I hear from him direct, then I will assume he MAY have found the lack of challenge against higher-rated players as undesirable (your word).

starter

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 03:17 PM
There is an obvious difference.
BD has 81 (from memory) players from his rating to 1999, in Doeberl Events. By the way Doeberl events are offered (3 division, no intermingling), BD cannot play any of these 81...which he enjoys playing.
Ian has zero above him.
If you cannot see the difference then no wonder you put such a strawman.No BD does not have 81 above him. As he chose to play in the U1600 section. As such he had none above him.

Doeberl is a wonderful, successful event. And I am not advocating move to a different configuration of Divisions etc. But surely we can look at the plusses and minuses, of what transpired, without suffering your accusing finger of 'rubbish' on extrapolations that you make.I dont recall seeing BD complain about his lack of higher rated players in the Doeberl Minor. Perhaps you can point me to where he said something about it.

You may have had the benefit of a conversation with BD.No, but he chose the Minor and hye hasnt complained about its lack of players that out rated him.

You may know whether he desired 7 games against lower rated players.
He was required to choose Major or Minor.
There were obvious attractions in both.
An assumption on your part that has not been backed up by any comment that BD has made regarding Doeberl.

But till I hear from him direct, then I will assume he MAY have found the lack of challenge against higher-rated players as undesirable (your word).Assume as much as you like.
You are just wasting time as usual.
BD chose to enter the Minor. He obviously knew given his rating he would be either top rated or near the top, before the event started.
He obviously had no problems with not having to face higher rated players otherwise he would have chosen to enter the Major.

arosar
31-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Excuse me daaahlings!! What are we bloody talking about now?

AR

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2005, 03:32 PM
Excuse me daaahlings!! What are we bloody talking about now?You probably just need to start around post #421 in this thread. ;)

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 08:30 PM
Could anyone give me a link to a list of the prizes paid out at the 2005 Doeberl?

starter

Alan Shore
31-03-2005, 08:48 PM
Hey guys... I went back and read those posts about me. If you want some answers:

The primary reason I went to Doeberl was to meet all you CC people (and some other old friends too). If I wanted to play chess, the Brisbane Open was on at the same time. If I wanted to maximise winning $$$, I would have waited for the Adelaide Uni Open and Gold Coast Open tournaments.

As to why I played the minor, I don't see the big deal..

a) I'm U1600, so why not enter an u1600 tournament?
b) It was a good challenge to be the first seed and a lot of extra pressure
c) The prizes in the minor were attractive, I won't deny. $600 for 1st over $250 for an u1700 prize. If the opportunity is there, why not take it?

Starter, I do enjoy the games against tough opponents in open weekenders. However, this tournament had divisions and I thought that was fine too, I had some challenging games and held up well against opposition. If I play next year (and my rating's within the range) I'd play the Major. I would recommend 'playing up' to all who wish to improve their game. In my case, I have no desire to improve my game and have not had such a desire in some years. I had a fun time at the tourn, had some good games and won some money as a bonus. Why are you trying to make such a big deal out of nothing? It's as if I'm trial for something here... :confused:

ursogr8
31-03-2005, 10:03 PM
Hey guys... I went back and read those posts about me. If you want some answers:

The primary reason I went to Doeberl was to meet all you CC people (and some other old friends too). If I wanted to play chess, the Brisbane Open was on at the same time. If I wanted to maximise winning $$$, I would have waited for the Adelaide Uni Open and Gold Coast Open tournaments.

As to why I played the minor, I don't see the big deal..

a) I'm U1600, so why not enter an u1600 tournament?
b) It was a good challenge to be the first seed and a lot of extra pressure
c) The prizes in the minor were attractive, I won't deny. $600 for 1st over $250 for an u1700 prize. If the opportunity is there, why not take it?


BD
First, let me say thanks for your honest revelation of why you entered one division rather than the other. Some good honest data is very helpful to administrators.
Shaun said that the disparity bewteen u1700 and u1600 prizes was there to have a marketing influence, and encourage participation. And you have validated his view by example.

Your choice is also sound, for the clear values you have put on the table for this point in time for you. :clap:

The reason the posts got a bit heated with Bill is that he waded in to a discussion I was having with Rob about the fairness of having to make the decision that you were forced to make; i.e Major or Minor. It is possible to contemplate a Doeberl with just two Divisions (Premier and Field, say). But you were presented with a three division Doeberl; that required you to make a choice between Major and Minor.
Now, in your case there appears to be no downside by choosing the MINOR. The monetary choice aligned with the chess challenge choice. I misjudged this on your part and I hope you don't feel on trial at all. Perfectly logical by you.

But, in spite of what Bill posts, there are players who agonise over the choice...
> enter in the Minor and chase Shaun's pot of gold, OR
>> enter in the Major to chase tougher games.

Derek Yu and noidea's nipper are two who chose the second route.


Rob and I know that, under certain conditions, it is possible that all players can avoid the dilemma of having to make a trade-off. The solution is in the tournament design.

Bill's opening salvo was to 'rubbish' such discussion. I have disengaged subsequently.



Starter, I do enjoy the games against tough opponents in open weekenders. However, this tournament had divisions and I thought that was fine too, I had some challenging games and held up well against opposition. If I play next year (and my rating's within the range) I'd play the Major. I would recommend 'playing up' to all who wish to improve their game. In my case, I have no desire to improve my game and have not had such a desire in some years. I had a fun time at the tourn, had some good games and won some money as a bonus. Why are you trying to make such a big deal out of nothing? It's as if I'm trial for something here... :confused:

Don't be confused BD. I selected your entry so that I could argue specific rather than generalised. In doing so, I misjudged the reasons for your choice. Your choice was good and logical for you.

Is it a big deal?
I suggest that it is for some. In particular (some of) the 1450-1600 group in the Minor who would like a couple of really challenging games against 1800's. And for (some of) the 1400-1600 group in the MAJOR who had to forgo a chance at the $600 to get challenging games. Just for starters.


starter

Mischa
31-03-2005, 10:11 PM
It is a choice I have discussed earlier...whether James should enter the major or minor. he had a good chance at a prize in the minor...i think...but felt under less pressure and greater challenge in the major...or was he just avoiding the pressure of "having a good chance". It also removed the threat of losing too many rating points, a situation that happened in the Aus. junior championships.

arosar
01-04-2005, 07:19 AM
Hey guys... I went back and read those posts about me. If you want some answers:

The primary reason I went to Doeberl was to meet all you CC people (and some other old friends too). If I wanted to play chess, the Brisbane Open was on at the same time. If I wanted to maximise winning $$$, I would have waited for the Adelaide Uni Open and Gold Coast Open tournaments.

As to why I played the minor, I don't see the big deal..

a) I'm U1600, so why not enter an u1600 tournament?
b) It was a good challenge to be the first seed and a lot of extra pressure
c) The prizes in the minor were attractive, I won't deny. $600 for 1st over $250 for an u1700 prize. If the opportunity is there, why not take it?

Starter, I do enjoy the games against tough opponents in open weekenders. However, this tournament had divisions and I thought that was fine too, I had some challenging games and held up well against opposition. If I play next year (and my rating's within the range) I'd play the Major. I would recommend 'playing up' to all who wish to improve their game. In my case, I have no desire to improve my game and have not had such a desire in some years. I had a fun time at the tourn, had some good games and won some money as a bonus. Why are you trying to make such a big deal out of nothing? It's as if I'm trial for something here... :confused:

Mate, don't let starter's rubbish diminish your achievement. You had your own selfish objectives and decided accordingly - fair and square.

AR

Recherché
01-04-2005, 10:42 AM
It is possible to contemplate a Doeberl with just two Divisions (Premier and Field, say).

Rob and I know that, under certain conditions, it is possible that all players can avoid the dilemma of having to make a trade-off. The solution is in the tournament design.

Hmm, interesting. Keeping the Premier isolated resolves most of the problems of implementing a Box Hill style tournament structure to the Doeberl tournament, the most important being the problems with FIDE rating. Though I would suggest the "Field" tournament needs at least three "separate divisions with intermingling".

Also, my previous statement about quarantining the final round and its impact on the fairness of prize distribution still stands.

That said, Doeberl happened to suit me very well this year, since I was potentially in the "strike zone" for prizes in the minor, yet I was also 19th seed, and hence expecting challenge as well.

arosar
01-04-2005, 10:53 AM
Player in Premiere section paid $10 bucks to his opponent in order to win. Hot stuff!

AR

jenni
01-04-2005, 11:28 AM
Player in Premiere section paid $10 bucks to his opponent in order to win. Hot stuff!

AR

You are kidding! You going to give us any clues?

JGB
01-04-2005, 11:30 AM
Player in Premiere section paid $10 bucks to his opponent in order to win. Hot stuff!

AR

Thats pretty cheap isnt it? :eek:

Ian Rout
01-04-2005, 02:45 PM
This $600 first prize in the minor has already provoked quite a lot of discussion elsewhere. The drift of that discussion is unmentionable.

Actually, I just learned a few minutes ago that some years earlier, the prize used to be something like $900! And a player rated 1595 won it.

AR
This is a bit back in the discussion now, but I can confirm that the prize for the Minor was $900; I think it was the first year the tournament was played in three sections. I was a member of the committee and the prize was cut back to $600 based on feedback that it was a little too high on the basis of relativities with other tournaments. At the same time we wanted to keep it at a reasonably substantial level to reflect the fact that the Minor is the "premier" U/1600 event in the country and winning it is not be sneezed at.

shaun
01-04-2005, 02:48 PM
This is a bit back in the discussion now, but I can confirm that the prize for the Minor was $900; I think it was the first year the tournament was played in three sections. I was a member of the committee and the prize was cut back to $600 based on feedback that it was a little too high on the basis of relativities with other tournaments. At the same time we wanted to keep it at a reasonably substantial level to reflect the fact that the Minor is the "premier" U/1600 event in the country and winning it is not be sneezed at.

OK. I stand corrected.

The_Wise_Man
01-04-2005, 10:06 PM
I was one that went the other way.... I played in the major looking for big scalps.... and overall got 7 really tough games and more than my money's worth.... I would have been in the higher end of the Minor but would I have played 7 interesting/competitive games.... maybe 4-5 really good games and a couple of walkovers.

Next year I think I will not have the choice (predicting I go over 1600) but I will be better prepared for the Major from this years experience.

Wise

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 07:31 PM
So are the Doeberl organisers going to publish all games? That was the proviso on me handing in all my scoresheets...

shaun
02-04-2005, 07:38 PM
So are the Doeberl organisers going to publish all games? That was the proviso on me handing in all my scoresheets...
Yes. That is the plan. Currently Paul Dunn has typed in the top 10 boards from each round of the Premier and will have all the Premier games, plus the top 10 boards from the Major and the Minor shortly.

arosar
02-04-2005, 07:44 PM
Some Doeberl games are in TWIC #542.

AR

Denis_Jessop
02-04-2005, 08:54 PM
So are the Doeberl organisers going to publish all games? That was the proviso on me handing in all my scoresheets...

I see that, because he was being nice to you ;) , Shaun did not point out that your proviso was ineffective because the scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event (FIDE Laws, Art. 8.3).

DJ

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 09:00 PM
I see that, because he was being nice to you ;) , Shaun did not point out that your proviso was ineffective because the scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event (FIDE Laws, Art. 8.3).

DJ

Sure but nothing was stopping me handing in the crap copies and keeping the clear ones for myself!

shaun
02-04-2005, 09:12 PM
Sure but nothing was stopping me handing in the crap copies and keeping the clear ones for myself!

Denis correctly picked my reason for not referring to FIDE Laws, Art. 8.3, but it is the "good" copy that is our property, and the "crap" copy that is yours.

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 09:26 PM
One of my opps was pretty miffed at having to hand in his 'good copy'... it's because it's very hard to read those crap copies. That's why I asked if the games would be published. I saw that many people had actually handed in their 'crap' copies instead.. I noticed the article says 'the scoresheet', and if you're handing in 'a scoresheet' then I don't see any difference.

Garvinator
02-04-2005, 09:32 PM
One of my opps was pretty miffed at having to hand in his 'good copy'... it's because it's very hard to read those crap copies. That's why I asked if the games would be published. I saw that many people had actually handed in their 'crap' copies instead.. I noticed the article says 'the scoresheet', and if you're handing in 'a scoresheet' then I don't see any difference.
well also players are to record legibly. If they cant write legibly enough that they cant read their own writing, then they get what they deserve with the crap copies ;)

I would imagine that both scoresheets are the property of the organisers and therefore any player being able to taken even the crap copy can be considered a bonus.

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 09:38 PM
well also players are to record legibly. If they cant write legibly enough that they cant read their own writing, then they get what they deserve with the crap copies ;)

I would imagine that both scoresheets are the property of the organisers and therefore any player being able to taken even the crap copy can be considered a bonus.

It's not a question of writing legibly, it's how good the copying paper is.

P.S. I know of no tournament that witholds scoresheets from participants, despite FIDE 8.3. Besides, I didn't think Shaun was one for enforcing the 'silly' laws.. I liked his announcement for the lightning very much, I am sure I will be following suit when I run another lightning later in the year. :D

shaun
02-04-2005, 09:43 PM
It's not a question of writing legibly, it's how good the copying paper is.

P.S. I know of no tournament that witholds scoresheets from participants, despite FIDE 8.3. Besides, I didn't think Shaun was one for enforcing the 'silly' laws.. I liked his announcement for the lightning very much, I am sure I will be following suit when I run another lightning later in the year. :D

The main purpose of 8.3 is to allow Arbiters/Officials to access scoresheets in the case of a dispute eg A player cannot refuse to show the arbiter a scoresheet if requested during the game.

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 09:54 PM
The main purpose of 8.3 is to allow Arbiters/Officials to access scoresheets in the case of a dispute eg A player cannot refuse to show the arbiter a scoresheet if requested during the game.

Yeah exactly, I thought as much too, so after the game has been concluded and the result agreed, should be all good.

I was also introduced to the practice of 'signing scoresheets' at Doeberl too, hadn't encountered that before either.

arosar
02-04-2005, 10:02 PM
I was also introduced to the practice of 'signing scoresheets' at Doeberl too, hadn't encountered that before either.

It's a FIDE regulation. I've normally only signed in big events, not for w/enders.

AR

Rincewind
02-04-2005, 11:52 PM
I was also introduced to the practice of 'signing scoresheets' at Doeberl too, hadn't encountered that before either.

We started asking players to do it in club events just for the practice as much as anything else. As Amiel says, it is a FIDE rule so we all should be doing it.

Paul S
03-04-2005, 12:22 AM
I should have mentioned in one of my earlier posts to say thankyou and well done to all the 2005 Doeberl organisers, arbiters and helpers for their efforts in making the 2005 Doeberl a successful and enjoyable event. Well done! :clap: :clap: :clap:

ursogr8
04-04-2005, 10:28 PM
Since the issue is one of fairness, the fact that players choose which division to play in at Doeberl means that your question is irrelevant. The best performing U1600 players who chose to play in the Minor were rewarded with the relevant prizes.

The problem with the box hill system is that the players leading one of the lower divisions tend to play players from the division above for most of the latter half of the tournament. By the end of the tournament, this can mean that the top players in a division have never played each other, which makes for an unreliable prize distribution. This is one of the main reasons why there is a relationship between the number of players and the number of rounds you need in a regular swiss.

Additionally, often a player that is a half point behind the leaders in a lower division will get a MUCH easier game in the final round - making a leapfrog likely.

Personally I believe that quarantining the divisions in the final round (B division only plays B division) actually solves a lot of this unfairness.

But the problem of getting the tournament FIDE rated would still apply.

hi Rob

I was quite taken by your observation
The top 5 seeds at the Doeberl Minor did not meet each other at all >

• #1 seed played opponents all rated lower, and duly won the tourney

• #2 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 14th place-getter and was 47 rating points lower

• #3 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 40th place-getter and was 4 rating points lower

• #4 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 21st place-getter and was 658 rating points lower

• #5 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 20th place-getter and was 190 rating points lower



Now you could probably argue that we should look at the top 5 finishers rather than the top 5 seeds. But the data I have posted is thoughtful reading.

It also caught my eye. Would you care to comment on the outcome on this relationship in the Minor; in the Major; in the Premier. With no clear winner in any of the 3 divisions' what broke down in your relationship theory?

regards
starter

JGB
04-04-2005, 10:36 PM
hi Rob

I was quite taken by your observation
The top 5 seeds at the Doeberl Minor did not meet each other at all >

• #1 seed played opponents all rated lower, and duly won the tourney

• #2 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 14th place-getter and was 47 rating points lower

• #3 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 40th place-getter and was 4 rating points lower

• #4 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 21st place-getter and was 658 rating points lower

• #5 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 20th place-getter and was 190 rating points lower



Now you could probably argue that we should look at the top 5 finishers rather than the top 5 seeds. But the data I have posted is thoughtful reading.

It also caught my eye. Would you care to comment on the outcome on this relationship in the Minor; in the Major; in the Premier.

regards
starter


:eek:

shaun
05-04-2005, 07:24 AM
Now you could probably argue that we should look at the top 5 finishers rather than the top 5 seeds. But the data I have posted is thoughtful reading.


but only as an example that you can prove anything with statistics. On the one hand you choose the players based on their seeding, but their opponents based on their finishing position. Personally I think this goes beyond simple sloppiness and into the realm of dishonesty.

As I have observed elsewhere the most surprising thing about the result was that the top seeds finished =1st in each tournament, which a) I don't think has ever happened, and is especially rare in the Minor. Usually the top seeds in this event struggle as they get run over by hoards of players on an upward arc (NB not always juniors). Eg this year seeds 3 & 4 in the Minor met in Rd 6, the only problem was it was board 102 (Bd 31 in the Minor).

pax
05-04-2005, 09:20 AM
• #1 seed played opponents all rated lower, and duly won the tourney

• #2 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 14th place-getter and was 47 rating points lower

• #3 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 40th place-getter and was 4 rating points lower

• #4 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 21st place-getter and was 658 rating points lower

• #5 seed ‘s highest performed opponent was the 20th place-getter and was 190 rating points lower

On the other hand these "observations" are perfectly reasonable given the unusually wide spread of finishing positions of the top 5 seeds (1, 5, 62, 40, 39 respectively).

ursogr8
05-04-2005, 09:22 AM
but only as an example that you can prove anything with statistics. On the one hand you choose the players based on their seeding, but their opponents based on their finishing position. Personally I think this goes beyond simple sloppiness and into the realm of dishonesty.

As I have observed elsewhere the most surprising thing about the result was that the top seeds finished =1st in each tournament, which a) I don't think has ever happened, and is especially rare in the Minor. Usually the top seeds in this event struggle as they get run over by hoards of players on an upward arc (NB not always juniors). Eg this year seeds 3 & 4 in the Minor met in Rd 6, the only problem was it was board 102 (Bd 31 in the Minor).

hi Shaun

Before you have me arriving at the station called 'dishonesty' just have a look at the context. I directed the post to Rob who had produced an example at Box Hill, involving two players only, and surmising a result that did not happen, from which he drew his conclusion. My data at least had 5 players, and surmised no non-actual results. Second, I highlighted that choosing the top 5 seeds was a bit questionable...so I feel a bit miffed by your comment about honesty. And all I offered was thoughtful reading, I did not put forward a conclusion.
I would have been happier if you said....'a work in progress, and of not much interest, so far".

regards
starter

Recherché
05-04-2005, 12:01 PM
The top 5 seeds at the Doeberl Minor did not meet each other at all >

That doesn't bother me in the slightest. A tournament is always designed to find a winner based on the player that performs best at the tournament.

If the performance of the seeds is not as expected, it doesn't reflect badly on the tournament design. If it reflects badly on anything, it's the rating system. I'm not suggesting the Doeberl Minor does reflect badly on the ratings system, though.


It also caught my eye. Would you care to comment on the outcome on this relationship in the Minor; in the Major; in the Premier. With no clear winner in any of the 3 divisions' what broke down in your relationship theory?

I don't object to not having a clear winner because players have finished on tied scores. That happens in chess.

What I object to is when the prizes are decided without the people competing for those prizes playing each other.

Obviously Swiss-type tournaments can never be as fair as a Round Robin; they are a compromise between tournament speed and fairness. However it is important to ensure that this compromise is a balanced and effective one.

In my opinion the Box Hill style of tournament is a significant enhancement to both the fairness and the enjoyability (competitiveness :)) of a standard swiss. But the fairness of the B (or C, or D...) division result is (in my opinion) diminished unless the last round is "quarantined" as I have described.


I directed the post to Rob who had produced an example at Box Hill, involving two players only, and surmising a result that did not happen, from which he drew his conclusion.

I was not suggesting that the tournament results in question were unfair. It worked out pretty well that time around.

I was suggesting that the tournament design had allowed for the (quite significant) possibility of an unfair result. I argued further that this was a weakness in the tournament design, and suggested an amendment to said design - one that was in fact in regular use for many Box Hill tournaments in 2003 and 2004.

ursogr8
05-04-2005, 12:25 PM
On the other hand these "observations" are perfectly reasonable given the unusually wide spread of finishing positions of the top 5 seeds (1, 5, 62, 40, 39 respectively).

pax


I think you have expressed the unusual performance of seeds 2-5 very well.




If the performance of the seeds is not as expected, it doesn't reflect badly on the tournament design. If it reflects badly on anything, it's the rating system.


Rob, your post is on a similar vein to pax's.
Although, perhaps we have to re-phrase to "If it reflects badly on anything, it's the rating system as a predictor of single tournament performance".

starter

ursogr8
05-04-2005, 12:27 PM
What I object to is when the prizes are decided without the people competing for those prizes playing each other.

OK. I will make that the target of my next forensic.

starter

Recherché
05-04-2005, 12:39 PM
Although, perhaps we have to re-phrase to "If it reflects badly on anything, it's the rating system as a predictor of single tournament performance".

Yes, that is a better wording. :)


OK. I will make that the target of my next forensic.

starter

Keep in mind that the Swiss system, as I mentioned, partially compromises this. In a swiss, it is normal (in fact, I think it's inevitable) that some of the top finishers won't have played some of the other top finishers. It's a question of the degree to which this occurs.

Also keep in mind that I am suggesting the final-round quarantine as an improvement to the Box Hill system in and of itself - not as a way to make the Box Hill system more like a "fair" swiss. As I said, I believe it is already more fair - it's just that a lack of final round quarantine undermines this achievement.

peter_parr
06-04-2005, 12:23 PM
Rogers and Wohl share permanent trophy.
Peter Parr

Grandmaster Ian Rogers and International Master Aleksander Wohl,the two highest rated players on the Australian Chess Federation Rating List, tied for first place ($1650 each) in the 43rd annual Doeberl Cup Easter Weekend tournament in Canberra. ACTCA President(and ACF President) Denis Jessop and the organising committee confirmed with Wohl and Rogers that the names of both players would be engraved on the Doeberl Cup permanent trophy.

for more info
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsl279h/news.htm

JGB
06-04-2005, 12:43 PM
Rogers and Wohl share permanent trophy.
Peter Parr

Grandmaster Ian Rogers and International Master Aleksander Wohl,the two highest rated players on the Australian Chess Federation Rating List, tied for first place ($1650 each) in the 43rd annual Doeberl Cup Easter Weekend tournament in Canberra. ACTCA President(and ACF President) Denis Jessop and the organising committee confirmed with Wohl and Rogers that the names of both players would be engraved on the Doeberl Cup permanent trophy.

for more info
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsl279h/news.htm

Heaps of info! but does anyone else find the setup, with that blue gridded backdrop, hard to read?

pax
06-04-2005, 12:55 PM
Heaps of info! but does anyone else find the setup, with that blue gridded backdrop, hard to read?

My thoughts exactly. Legibility is very important on the web!

Rincewind
06-04-2005, 01:41 PM
My thoughts exactly. Legibility is very important on the web!

And elsewhere!

Sutek
06-04-2005, 02:24 PM
Perhaps if it was bold typed?

Regards
Sutek

Recherché
06-04-2005, 02:34 PM
Heaps of info! but does anyone else find the setup, with that blue gridded backdrop, hard to read?

Yes, somewhat. Also the headings could stand to be a different size/colour/weight to the rest of the text.

The Doeberl text mentions undefeated players, but fails to mention Benjamin Lazarus (five draws), whose undefeated run is arguably the most impressive of the lot.

peter_parr
06-04-2005, 03:14 PM
Thank you for your message.

We have corrected the text.

Benjamin Lazarus undefeated is of course correct and an excellent result.

Regards
Peter Parr

ursogr8
06-04-2005, 09:06 PM
<snip>

Additionally, often a player that is a half point behind the leaders in a lower division will get a MUCH easier game in the final round - making a leapfrog likely.

Personally I believe that quarantining the divisions in the final round (B division only plays B division) actually solves a lot of this unfairness.



Rob

I have found another example at Doeberl which I quote to highlight that your selection of single examples from tournaments can mislead.

Doeberl Major

Four players tied for first; on 5.5 points/7.

One of the players did not play an opponent inside the top 10 finishers in the Major, in any of his seven rounds.

Thus, I am not convinced by your single (Fielder - Galiabovitch) example.

starter

Recherché
07-04-2005, 10:49 AM
Rob

I have found another example at Doeberl which I quote to highlight that your selection of single examples from tournaments can mislead.

Doeberl Major

Four players tied for first; on 5.5 points/7.

One of the players did not play an opponent inside the top 10 finishers in the Major, in any of his seven rounds.

Thus, I am not convinced by your single (Fielder - Galiabovitch) example.

starter

But I haven't put forward the unmodified swiss in use in the Doeberl Major as an example of a fair tournament. In fact I've already said that the Box Hill system is an advance from that as far as fairness goes. So the fact that you found what might be argued (though not by me without further examination) to be an unfair run of games for a player in that tournament means nothing.

Also, I provided the Fielder - Galiabovich example simply to clearly illustrate what I was talking about.

My opinions about the last round quarantine were not drawn from that particular example. They were based on comparisons between the last-round-quarantined tournaments I played in during 2003 and early 2004, and the non-quarantined tournaments I observed in late 2004 and early 2005. The quarantining process stopped at exactly the same time I moved up to A division, so thus far has not effected me personally. The last quarantined tournament was the 2004 club championship, and the first non-quarantined was the 2004 Open.

Surya and I (the two leading B-division players going into the final round of the club championship) would have been at a disadvantage compared to some if not all of the 7 players half a point behind us if quarantining had not taken place. But, since it did, we played each other to decide the tournament winner, and the 5-pointers played each other too.

My dislike for the non-quarantined process has existed ever since I first observed it. You may recall me complaining on the forums about the final round draw for the Open at the time. I had been surprised to see the discontinuation of a practise which had seemed common sense when I was playing in B division.

You have not made an attempt to address my contention that it is fairer for the B-division leaders to be playing each other in the final round to decide who wins the B-division prizes.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2005, 07:12 PM
starter is wanting to me help out his mate Sweeney (aka DM).

Now DM...this is a very interesting test of our mate Bill's consistency.
A > He probably knows the answer to the basic question...maybe yes, maybe no.
B > He claims (as recently as today) to be mainly a helpful poster
C > It is unlikely that he would not be even-handed and give you assistance as well as the usual serve.
So, I expect him to respond to this question.Now I wouldnt want to disappoint my mate starter. :whistle:

Unfortunately Sweeney is spreading more false rumors.

A little time ago, during a little rest, I heard a little bird tweeting and chirping and singing. I gathered that the ACF maybe, unable to FIDE rate the doeberl Premier 2005 because .... ehem, ehem .... they couldn't afford it. Is this true and part of a bigger picture, or is it baseless rumor?As usual he is spreading just baseless rubbish. He should stop listening to tweeting birds. It is no wonder based on this rubbish that he has no credibility.
Firstly as has been pointed out on this board previously, although all events to be FIDE rated must go to FIDE via the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer (Gary Bekker) it is the tournament organiser who is required to pay the FIDE ratings fee.
Secondly as far as I am aware FIDE bills the ACF for the event after the event is processed for rating by FIDE. The ACF will bill the tournament organiseer. The ACF will pay the fee to FIDE even if the tournament organiser defaults (I am unaware of anyone not paying), however if that circumstance did occur then I'm sure the ACF Council would simply not allow any further events from that organiser to be submitted for FIDE rating until they paid the outstanding fee and the fee for the subsequent event being submitted.

Matt then follows up that post with

Has the 2005 Doeberl Premier been submitted for FIDE rating?Personally I dont know as I dont handle the submission of events to FIDE for rating but I can see no reason why the tournament organiser/Chief Arbiter would not be submitting the event to the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer for FIDE rating. Given those involved with the Doeberl event I have no doubt that it will be submitted to the ACF FIDE ratings Officer and processed inclusuion on the July FIDE 2005 list.


Well there you go starter.
I answered as best I could your A), provided a helpful informmative post for B) and gave him a good dose of information and a serve in C). :owned:

ursogr8
11-05-2005, 07:23 PM
starter is wanting to me help out his mate Sweeney (aka DM).
Now I wouldnt want to disappoint my mate starter. :whistle:

Unfortunately Sweeney is spreading more false rumors.
As usual he is spreading just baseless rubbish. He should stop listening to tweeting birds. It is no wonder based on this rubbish that he has no credibility.
Firstly as has been pointed out on this board previously, although all events to be FIDE rated must go to FIDE via the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer (Gary Bekker) it is the tournament organiser who is required to pay the FIDE ratings fee.
Secondly as far as I am aware FIDE bills the ACF for the event after the event is processed for rating by FIDE. The ACF will bill the tournament organiseer. The ACF will pay the fee to FIDE even if the tournament organiser defaults (I am unaware of anyone not paying), however if that circumstance did occur then I'm sure the ACF Council would simply not allow any further events from that organiser to be submitted for FIDE rating until they paid the outstanding fee and the fee for the subsequent event being submitted.

Matt then follows up that post with
Personally I dont know as I dont handle the submission of events to FIDE for rating but I can see no reason why the tournament organiser/Chief Arbiter would not be submitting the event to the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer for FIDE rating. Given those involved with the Doeberl event I have no doubt that it will be submitted to the ACF FIDE ratings Officer and processed inclusuion on the July FIDE 2005 list.


Well there you go starter.
I answered as best I could your A), provided a helpful informmative post for B) and gave him a good dose of information and a serve in C). :owned:
Well that you did Bill. :clap:
And I have not abridged any of your post, But you did snip my late edit. (:uhoh: on your part). But I guess it could have been between flicks of the switches.
You passed the consistency test.

Just goes to show how you ask the question. Maybe.

Btw....anyone wondering how on earth to keep track of this conversation....the original posts were on quite another bb. You could read there for the complete posts (asking the question), and here for the answers. :doh: .

starter

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2005, 07:40 PM
Well that you did Bill. :clap:
And I have not abridged any of your post, But you did snip my late edit. (:uhoh: on your part). But I guess it could have been between flicks of the switches.
You passed the consistency test.

Just goes to show how you ask the question. Maybe.

Btw....anyone wondering how on earth to keep track of this conversation....the original posts were on quite another bb. You could read there for the complete posts (asking the question), and here for the answers. :doh: .No need to go there as I quoted all of the relevant parts of DM's post.
I left out the following sentence because it was just an attempt on his part to cast aspersions because he hoped no one would bother resopnding to his rubbish.

The ACF President could put this rumor to rest if he wanted to, or he could remain silent and thereby send a signal that all is not wellI suspect Denis wouldnt bother dignifying such an attempted beatup with a response.
After all if in fact Sweeney really were interested in getting information instead of dealing in innuendo he could have emailed Denis directly. However Matt would never let the facts get in the way of one of his beatups.

antichrist
11-05-2005, 08:08 PM
Starter, have you got that note tied to your leg for take off? Or do I have to do the job again?

Get Matt to ask for some sex education lessons and see if he can resist then, he may want to personally deliver them. ha ha ha.

ursogr8
11-05-2005, 09:41 PM
Starter, have you got that note tied to your leg for take off? Or do I have to do the job again?

Get Matt to ask for some sex education lessons and see if he can resist then, he may want to personally deliver them. ha ha ha.

hi a/c

When Bill called you a demented carrier pigeon did you happen to notice which of the three words he bolded?

starter

antichrist
11-05-2005, 10:03 PM
Inconsequential now, I made a point of flying them over there before mods could edit. Bill will spew when he reads them over there.

Actually there are intoxicated carrier pigeons, we used to give them wheat soaked in alcohol to make them drunk so could catch'em.

Clockworkorang isn no on by

just slightly off thread

Rhubarb
12-05-2005, 07:43 PM
I was shooting the breeze and all of a sudden I happened to remember an incident at the Doeberl Cup when I was playing Ian Rogers. We both had about 15-20 minutes left and all of a sudden both players' times on the new DGT clock dropped to zero. This had happened to Guy West and Andjelija Zivanovic in an earlier round so the arbiters were aware of the problem, and had made an announcement to that effect. Also, Rogers and I were both writing down move times so it was no particular problem to reset a new clock (by Cathy Rogers, as it happened) even though I was away from the board when 'time ended'.

I thought no more of the incident until I found out that DGT had recalled a new version of their clock about a year ago soon after it was released, and had committed to pay for all the expenses of the worldwide recollection.

I wonder if all the faulty clocks that arrived in Australia were returned for replacement by the relevant suppliers - I have no idea who supplied the clocks for the Doeberl Cup. :hmm:

shaun
12-05-2005, 10:45 PM
The clocks were supplied by Australian Chess Enterprises. The arbiters were made aware of this potential problem, as well as the recommened fix (which was to set the time control manually as opposed to using the preset setting).
We tried to do this with every clock but either a) this fix wasn't a fix b) we didn't do it right or c) helpful players used the automatic setting when we weren't looking. I think (a) is the most plausible explanation.
BTW this was discussed on another thread which I cannot remember right now.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2005, 10:55 PM
The clocks were supplied by Australian Chess Enterprises. The arbiters were made aware of this potential problem, as well as the recommened fix (which was to set the time control manually as opposed to using the preset setting).
We tried to do this with every clock but either a) this fix wasn't a fix b) we didn't do it right or c) helpful players used the automatic setting when we weren't looking. I think (a) is the most plausible explanation.
BTW this was discussed on another thread which I cannot remember right now.It was in the DGT XL clocks thread in the General Chess Chat forum here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1116&page=2&pp=15

Rhubarb
13-05-2005, 01:32 AM
The clocks were supplied by Australian Chess Enterprises. The arbiters were made aware of this potential problem, as well as the recommened fix (which was to set the time control manually as opposed to using the preset setting).
We tried to do this with every clock but either a) this fix wasn't a fix b) we didn't do it right or c) helpful players used the automatic setting when we weren't looking. I think (a) is the most plausible explanation.
BTW this was discussed on another thread which I cannot remember right now.
As I had already made abundantly clear, the arbiters were not only aware of the problem, they quickly and competently resolved the incidents as they occurred.

But imagine if both players had 10 seconds left and then both displays dropped to zero. I find it unbelievable that players in the most prestigious weekend tournament in the country were playing with faulty clocks after the manufacturer had committed to paying the expenses for a worldwide recall. To me, this says that certain suppliers cannot be trusted to do the right thing by consumers - or the players.

The_Wise_Man
16-05-2005, 11:32 PM
Just for the record....

My clock also blanked out at the Doeberl Cup when both players were under 5 minutes in one of my matches.... didn't think much about it as I record the time remaining for each move and the problem was easily fixed...

Wise

Lucena
17-05-2005, 02:27 AM
Dunno if I've meantioned it but my opponent's clock blanked to zero for no real reason in the 6th round of Doeberl. Wasn't really a problem as he was already in serious trouble OTB.

antichrist
17-05-2005, 07:49 AM
All these report about faulty digital clocks is an excuse to throw them away and get back to guillotine, ie, real chess.

As someone said the same people are still winnng whether with time increment or guillotine, so by offering the slower players a second chance is achieving nothing, as well they don't deserve it!!


They are only messing up the timetable of rounds and extending them unnecessary. Yeah people say on average it is only so many moves and so many minutes extra round. This may be only anecdotal.

I witnessed an adult comp recently where two juniors whose endgame was limited held up a comp for about 20 mins because they dilly-dallied on time increment - going forever. And because they did not know how to finish the ending was not worth watching at all.

Whereas previously under guillotine usually only the better games went the distance and the weaker players (or easy winners) could crowd around the better games ending and get a buzz from the game and from each other as well as learn. Now all this is often denied.

In another game of 20 mins plus 10 secs a move, a player whose rating was about 300 below his opponent and losing it was 23 NOTE 23 minutes behind his opponent and still playing on. If no increment the he would have lost ages ago on time and his opponent could have done something else more productive -- like watch a high class game.

So here is another cause for you Gareth to take up with your eloquence, logic and clarity of expression.

Make at least half of tournaments guillotine finish.
I'll drink to that.