PDA

View Full Version : ACF Performance Measures



ChessGuru
25-06-2005, 10:51 PM
A lot of talk about ACF going on, but how are they really doing? Well the only way to know is to measure what you think are the OUTCOMES the ACF should be striving to achieve. Then see how the operations of the ACF are linked to these outcomes. It would be nice to see a simple table with numbers showing exactly the progress of the ACF. I wonder who would be able to put that together? I'd suggest the outcomes we need to look at should be (please add to this list - must be 'measurable' and cannot be "To facilitate co-operation and foster the spirit of fair play and love to all, bulldust, bulldust". ):

- Number of rated games played in Aus
- Number of players in:
- World Junior and other similar events
- Aus Junior
- Aus Champs/Open
- Schools events
- Number of $$'s given to Aus representatives overseas
- Grand Prix (# of tournaments/players/$$'s etc)
- Number of new titled players
- ACF bank account/assets
- Sponsorships obtained (eg. NECG success)

My feeling is that some areas have (over the last 3-4 years) have been improved:
7% increase in rated games from 2002 - 2005
More players at World Junior (and better performacnes eg. Raymond Song)
More players playing school chess
More titled players
More money in ACF coffers
Sponsorship from NECG

Many have declined:
Aus Open/Champs numbers in recent years been low (Mt Buller and Adelaide very low).
ACF Grand Prix disaster
ACF $'s given to Aus reps a disgrace (Olympiad and Juniors)

Then we look at the improvements and ask if it is a direct result of ACF actions - or merely right place at the right time?

-7% increase in rated games isn't really fantastic, is it due to ACF efforts?
-More school chess - is that thanks to ACF or proliferation of professional coachign?
-More World Junior and better results (Can Raymond Song attribute his success to the assistance the ACF has provided, or it is just he is damn talented and works hard!)
-More titled players - thanks to ACF efforts to ensure more IM norm events etc, or relaxation of FIDE regulations (Zonals etc) and individual players supreme effort?
-Sponsorship from NECG - ACF strategy paying dividends or a lucky break knowing the right philanthropist?
-ACF $'s increased - sensible financial management or unfair taxes?

Can someone create the easily readable table we are hoping for?

antichrist
25-06-2005, 11:01 PM
Include on the table: communication of rules etc. and discussion of import issues like Can Reps be legally... thread

I still can't get an answer as to whether ordinary members can send motions to ACF meetings.

Denis_Jessop
25-06-2005, 11:33 PM
Include on the table: communication of rules etc. and discussion of import issues like Can Reps be legally... thread

I still can't get an answer as to whether ordinary members can send motions to ACF meetings.

The answer to your last sentence is clear. It is effectively "No"; that is, anyone can write to the Secretary but motions presented by persons outside the Council won't be considered unless proposed by a Council member. Also, if you have read my paper, you will know that there is no such being as an "ordinary member" of the ACF.

Having said that, I should also say that, as ACF President, I am always glad to hear the opinions of members of the chess community. But most day-to-day matters of concern to the "ordinary" player are best taken up with their State Associations which have primary responsibility for those things and which, in other appropriate cases, can take the matter up with the ACF.

DJ

antichrist
26-06-2005, 12:07 AM
The answer to your last sentence is clear. It is effectively "No"; that is, anyone can write to the Secretary but motions presented by persons outside the Council won't be considered unless proposed by a Council member. Also, if you have read my paper, you will know that there is no such being as an "ordinary member" of the ACF.

Having said that, I should also say that, as ACF President, I am always glad to hear the opinions of members of the chess community. But most day-to-day matters of concern to the "ordinary" player are best taken up with their State Associations which have primary responsibility for those things and which, in other appropriate cases, can take the matter up with the ACF.

DJ



As having read that paper ordinary members was referring to ordinary state members of course.

As my matter re "Reps" thread is not a state issue at all and as Bill has stated in NSWCA one on one with your prez" thread he won't handle it I don't expect a sympathetic hearing there but I will try.

I can see an issue like this, "Reps be legally", as no one wanting to touch which does not mean at all that it is not important.

There should be some mechanism for ordinary state members to have issues which are not considered by ACF, or judged negatively by ACF, to have recourse such as a referendum on the issue. This could be done 6 monthly or yearly.

That is some grassroot participation in democracy - even though that is not the purpose of the ACF. But it could be ordinary members or the children of ordinary members who are severely effected by non-decisions by ACF on an issue like this.

Look at the sacrifice that Jenni puts into chess and imagine if her kids brilliant games o/s were disqualified.

I 100% fund my nephew who is brilliant at sport and who may represent Aussie one day, if he got sabotaged due to someone else's action they would not look very pretty. Why? Because I have spent thousands and ferried him around everywhere, and he has sacrificed so much himself - dedicated his life to it.

And does chess admin expect us to put up with this bullshit situation - not very likely whilst I am around. So someone bloody face the issue.

Thanks again for answering

Denis_Jessop
26-06-2005, 12:22 AM
Hi A/C

We seem to have a multi-thread discussion going here where I am replying to you on one while you are replying to me on the other at the same time. It is made more complicated by the fact that I tend to skip the One-on-One thread if short of time, as I reckon it is a NSW thing, so I hadn't seen your posting there. I see your point. Perhaps raising it otherwise than on the forum might be better as the ambience here is not quite the same as real life ;) :rolleyes:

DJ.

antichrist
26-06-2005, 12:47 AM
Hi A/C

We seem to have a multi-thread discussion going here where I am replying to you on one while you are replying to me on the other at the same time. It is made more complicated by the fact that I tend to skip the One-on-One thread if short of time, as I reckon it is a NSW thing, so I hadn't seen your posting there. I see your point. Perhaps raising it otherwise than on the forum might be better as the ambience here is not quite the same as real life ;) :rolleyes:

DJ.

I thought I had deleted this thread but apparently only copied to other thread. I did moderate in other reply. Keep to other thread is more appop.

ursogr8
26-06-2005, 04:03 PM
A lot of talk about ACF going on, but how are they really doing? Well the only way to know is to measure what you think are the OUTCOMES the ACF should be striving to achieve. Then see how the operations of the ACF are linked to these outcomes. It would be nice to see a simple table with numbers showing exactly the progress of the ACF. I wonder who would be able to put that together? I'd suggest the outcomes we need to look at should be (please add to this list - must be 'measurable' and cannot be "To facilitate co-operation and foster the spirit of fair play and love to all, bulldust, bulldust". ):

Dave
This is an admirable objective of yours to set in motion the identification of the objectives of the ACF platform, and the measurement towards those objectives. I have often thought about doing something similar at a local level, but somehow we are always too busy.
I don't have the figures you desire for national level, and probably only an ACF member does, if anyone.
Can I share with you our local experience on the KPAs you list.


- Number of rated games played in Aus
I am knocked out by the number of new members we have coming asking for Club membership for the first time where they have played hundreds of internet rated games but nil ACF rated games. Five years ago I had not met such an individual, now it is nearly a weekly occurrence.

- Number of players in:
- World Junior and other similar events
If you include privateers, then we have jumped from the spasmodic Bourmistrov/Lee/Lugo number to frequently 4 in each year.

- Aus Junior
- Aus Champs/Open
- Schools events
No data available to me.


- Number of $$'s given to Aus representatives overseas
Five years ago quite a few senior Club members would give private donations to Olympiad type appeals. Now that BHCC juniors are representing us o/s then the dollars are much more likley to be donated there.


- Grand Prix (# of tournaments/players/$$'s etc)
Never been a VIC focus in my experience.


- Number of new titled players

Surely too small a figure, as a % of the elite playing population, to be allowing trend analysis to be reliable.


- ACF bank account/assets

Pass


- Sponsorships obtained (eg. NECG success)

I agree, this one would be worth tracking.


<snip>
Can someone create the easily readable table we are hoping for?

Who did you have in mind?

starter

Alan Shore
26-06-2005, 04:45 PM
Sponsorship from NECG

This was fantastic but it's a difficult thing to come by. Has there been suggestions about actually employing someone to seek sponsorship? I think it would be worthwhile.


Many have declined:
Aus Open/Champs numbers in recent years been low (Mt Buller and Adelaide very low).

Likely either to do with location or the events which led to disrupting the planning of the event itself, which many believe your disharmony contributed to, David.


ACF Grand Prix disaster

I agree - this is a joke and must be abolished. Not only is it ridiculously biased for NSW events, there's been no structure or any real desert-based distribution of winnings.


ACF $'s given to Aus reps a disgrace (Olympiad and Juniors)

I wouldn't know - don't have access to any details of ACF finances, yet you would think there'd be a provision for some contribution.


-7% increase in rated games isn't really fantastic, is it due to ACF efforts?

I don't think the numbers are bad - I doubt you could attribute the incease to the ACF in any way though, more likely through the efforts of coaching organisations like yours.


-ACF $'s increased - sensible financial management or unfair taxes?

The ACF rating fees are quite reasonable, it is the state fees that border on exortionism, hence many events go unrated, leading to skewed data.



I am knocked out by the number of new members we have coming asking for Club membership for the first time where they have played hundreds of internet rated games but nil ACF rated games. Five years ago I had not met such an individual, now it is nearly a weekly occurrence.

It's a sign of the times - internet play is easier, cheapier and more accessible, one can only expect it to rise even further.

ursogr8
26-06-2005, 06:33 PM
<snip>

It's a sign of the times - internet play is easier, cheapier and more accessible, one can only expect it to rise even further.

Yes, BD, it is a sign of the times, and I agree with your comments.
But it does not seem to be a threat to our Evening Club here. On the contrary, the internet is serving as the 'introduction' to the game (something we always found hard to service for raw beginners), and then players want to graduate to playing real opponents and socialise amongst like-minded.


My point to David was to be wary of just measuring OTB rated games, whereas internet rated games are increasing the playing population too.

starter

PHAT
27-06-2005, 08:37 AM
be wary of just measuring OTB rated games, whereas internet rated games are increasing the playing population too.

starter

No one would try to suggest that the ACF has something tot do with increased internet chess, would they. So OTB is the only relevant measure.

ursogr8
27-06-2005, 08:54 AM
No one would try to suggest that the ACF has something to do with increased internet chess, would they.
No; I am not suggesting that.


So OTB is the only relevant measure.
But I am suggesting that it is a courageous administrator who fails to measure his competitor and his opportunities.

starter

bergil
27-06-2005, 06:39 PM
What is wrong with a national circuit of chess tournaments? The Grand Prix needs changes but the concept is good, why are Victorian's against it?

PHAT
27-06-2005, 09:27 PM
What is wrong with a national circuit of chess tournaments? The Grand Prix needs changes but the concept is good, why are Victorian's against it?

Because we have more tournies and therefore more GP events and that means we are better able to cream the winnings that all nation's players paid for.

I think that if a sponsor put up the dosh, Vic clubs would be clamoring to name events as counting toward the GP.

Garvinator
28-06-2005, 01:47 AM
Because we have more tournies and therefore more GP events and that means we are better able to cream the winnings that all nation's players paid for.
This is incorrect. If Victoria ran 5 to 7 events in a calendar year, then their players could win any or all divisions. Only a player's top five results count to their final score, therefore a person could win it from Victoria if they ran events there.

PHAT
28-06-2005, 08:32 AM
This is incorrect. If Victoria ran 5 to 7 events in a calendar year, then their players could win any or all divisions. Only a player's top five results count to their final score, therefore a person could win it from Victoria if they ran events there.

This is incorrect. Any player would be happy to have a two dozen events (NSW) to gain their top 5, rather than 5 to 7 events (Vic).

Alan Shore
28-06-2005, 11:01 AM
This is incorrect. Any player would be happy to have a two dozen events (NSW) to gain their top 5, rather than 5 to 7 events (Vic).

Yeah I agree.. with the added effect that the 'if' of Victoria, QLD or anyone else making more GP events is very likely not going to happen.

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2005, 01:11 PM
Yeah I agree.. with the added effect that the 'if' of Victoria, QLD or anyone else making more GP events is very likely not going to happen.I think the more important issue is how many Cat 3 events are held in each state.
This year it appears they are: ACT 2 (Doeberl and ANU Open), VIC 1 (Ballarat), QLD 3 (Gold Coast Open, Caloundra Open and the Nell Van der Graaff Classic), SA 1 (Adelaide University Open), NSW 6 (NSW Open, Ryde-Eastwood Open, Fairfield Winter, Fairfield Summer, Coal City Open, Coff's Harbour Open).
Of the 6 in NSW only 2 are NSWCA events.

antichrist
28-06-2005, 02:06 PM
So NSW has the equavalent of all the other states put together.

Tassie, NT and WA don't get a mention.

pax
28-06-2005, 02:59 PM
WA decided many years ago not to participate in the ACF Grand Prix. The realities of the size of Australia, and the amateur status of chess mean that few if any West Australians compete in interstate weekenders, and few if any Eastern Staters play in WA weekenders.

At the time, the ACF GP was simply taking money out of WA chess, with a little coming back as state prizes. No WA player ever had realistic chances of a national prize.

Instead of the ACF GP, WA has it's own GP which runs quite successfully, and is a better option for WA.

Garvinator
28-06-2005, 03:05 PM
WA decided many years ago not to participate in the ACF Grand Prix. The realities of the size of Australia, and the amateur status of chess mean that few if any West Australians compete in interstate weekenders, and few if any Eastern Staters play in WA weekenders.

At the time, the ACF GP was simply taking money out of WA chess, with a little coming back as state prizes. No WA player ever had realistic chances of a national prize.

Instead of the ACF GP, WA has it's own GP which runs quite successfully, and is a better option for WA.
WA has one cat 1 gp tournament, the SW Open held in Bunbury. They held it last year as a gp tournament and they have one this year.

BTW, I dont recall this being a gp thread ;)

Alan Shore
28-06-2005, 03:09 PM
Instead of the ACF GP, WA has it's own GP which runs quite successfully, and is a better option for WA.

Then why don't all states just do this?

I'd still prefer it to be abolished and have the money go straight into prizes for the event.

pax
28-06-2005, 03:22 PM
WA has one cat 1 gp tournament, the SW Open held in Bunbury. They held it last year as a gp tournament and they have one this year.


Yes, I know. This is the choice of the organisers of that tournament (which I think is the Bunbury Chess Club). CAWA organised tournaments are not part of the GP.



BTW, I dont recall this being a gp thread ;)

It's called thread drift - and anyway, the GP is part of the 'performance measure'.



Then why don't all states just do this?

I'd still prefer it to be abolished and have the money go straight into prizes for the event.

They can if they choose to. But I think the GP makes sense for most states. None of the other states have anywhere near the isolation problems of WA, and there is a pretty reasonable level of intermingling in the major tournaments around Australia.

Another point to consider is that a principle purpose of the GP is to encourage and provide significant prizes for Australia's elite players. WA has no representation in Australia's top 20 players, so has less of an obligation in that regard.

Ian Rout
28-06-2005, 03:50 PM
and anyway, the GP is part of the 'performance measure'.


It was proposed as one, but I think the performance measure is the number of participants in weekenders. I would classify the GP as a means to that end, not a measure in itself.

It's true that some of the other proposed measures are indirect measures too, but I think they are more clearly positive in their own right.

PHAT
28-06-2005, 04:16 PM
... a principle purpose of the GP is to encourage and provide significant prizes for Australia's elite players.

A devil's advocate question: Encourage them to do what, and why?

Is there any evidence that the GP results in the "what" for the "why?"

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2005, 04:44 PM
A devil's advocate question: Encourage them to do what, and why?

Is there any evidence that the GP results in the "what" for the "why?"I noticed that one of the few differences between the first year you ran the Comman Man tournament in 2003 and when you ran it in 2004 & 2005 was that in 2003 it was advertised as a GP Cat 1 event.
When it was a GP event in 2003 you got 38 entrants and when it wasnt in 2004 & 2005 you got 16 entrants.

The reduction in numbers may be related to its lack of being a GP event.

pax
28-06-2005, 06:01 PM
A devil's advocate question: Encourage them to do what, and why?

Is there any evidence that the GP results in the "what" for the "why?"

Well the 'what' is generally to play lots of tournaments (and I would add particularly tournaments outside their home state), and the 'why' is because it's good for the tournaments, it's good for the elite players, it's good for the non-elite players, it's good for Australian chess in general.

And there seems to be plenty of evidence of it doing just that. Take the top ten weekenders around Australia, and there are substantial numbers of elite players travelling to take part.

Libby
28-06-2005, 06:37 PM
Would a bonus points system work? Not for top stream of players perhaps but at your "Common Man" level?

Top players probably travel anyway because they have the dual & more likely opportunity of prizemoney from the actual event as well as prizemoney in the GP.

A lot of club level players can get stuck in the rut of playing the same people again and again and again. Clubs rely on these players to keep the numbers strong, to assist juniors on the rise and because they seem to perform a lot of the club functions.

If these club "journeymen" had an incentive to pop out of their comfort zone and play an event or two interstate it might revitalise their game and broaden the horizons of the chess community.

This kind of networking could work on every level. It leads to "you sleep on my couch and I'll sleep on yours" kind of reciprocation which all makes the whole travel thing less expensive.

Certainly we want the top people doing the circuit but I think players at every level of a tournament enjoy fresh faces (or fresh meat ;) )

antichrist
28-06-2005, 06:58 PM
I can understand some people saying travel around, but the Sydney scene is pretty good, a lot of good comps etc and if you know the players - quite fun. One can also drop in junior chess and at Hyde and Burwood Parks etc.

I doubt other cities can match Sydney.

PHAT
28-06-2005, 07:42 PM
Well the 'what' is generally to play lots of tournaments (and I would add particularly tournaments outside their home state), and the 'why' is because it's good for the tournaments, it's good for the elite players, it's good for the non-elite players, it's good for Australian chess in general.

Agreed


And there seems to be plenty of evidence of it doing just that. Take the top ten weekenders around Australia, and there are substantial numbers of elite players travelling to take part.

Which came first? Chicken or egg. Do the top players go to top tournaments now , because it has money or it has top players to play. Did the subsequent influx of lower players allow the higher top prizes.

A question that could shed light in this is: If the Deoberl was a $1k event rather than a $10k event, would the top players still play?

If not, what does it say about them? The ramification is to keep it as $10k
If yes, what would ity say about them? The ramification is that top players ought to be persued to play in events with other confirmed entries.

ChessGuru
01-07-2005, 06:21 PM
"I wouldn't know - don't have access to any details of ACF finances, yet you would think there'd be a provision for some contribution."

I think that the Olympiad players got $100 each.
I think the World Junior Reps got $50 each.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

Furthermore in the past 3 years the ACF's bank account has increased in size from ?$40K to ?$60K - i am again not really sure of the exact figures. What are they saving up for? It seems to be raining now!

I think about 70% of the ACF expense for a year is spent to adminsiter the spending of the other 30%! Ie. if the ACF did not exist then a handfull of FIDE fees would need to be paid and that's about it! The ACF puts very little money into anything as far as I can tell...

"I don't think the numbers are bad - I doubt you could attribute the incease to "

I don't think that 7% increase in 3 years is good at all. But i also don't think that it can be attributed to the ACF at all. Here are some other interesting figures:

The ACF master ratings list contains 23,509 players.

Of these only 3166 are termed ACTIVE players (ie. Have played a game in the past 22 months).

Of these only 1424 of them have played a rated game in the past 3 months.

"The ACF rating fees are quite reasonable, it is the state fees that border on exortionism, hence many events go unrated, leading to skewed data."

Here is a possible problem. The ACF derives all (most) its income from "rating fees" which are not meant to be 'really' linked to ratings - but are 'admin fees'. So what will happen when someone else (eg. FIDE) can offer a much BETTER rating system for a fraction of the cost?

So with all these perfomance measures - it seems like a great number of them are not controlled or influenced by the ACF at all. If that is the case the ACF should not be using them as measures of their success - the ACF has to re-invent itself and actually DO SOMETHING which they can then measure and say if they are successful or not.

I suspect at the moment the ACF could disappear and nobody would really notice.

antichrist
01-07-2005, 07:23 PM
I think that somehow they should be encouraging and supporting a state assoc for NT. Strictly speaking it is shocking that there is no assoc there. I think a minor organiser should be sent up for about 6 months to a year to get the show running, including revving up the schoools children.

pax
02-07-2005, 01:36 AM
I think that somehow they should be encouraging and supporting a state assoc for NT. Strictly speaking it is shocking that there is no assoc there. I think a minor organiser should be sent up for about 6 months to a year to get the show running, including revving up the schoools children.

Who is going to stump up the money for that initiative?

antichrist
02-07-2005, 04:25 AM
Who is going to stump up the money for that initiative?


There are some people who sometimes have times on their hands, are sufficiently capable, who may take it on for the love of chess and for the satisfaction of achieving it. They could be complimented by higher players, retired from the workforce or on holiday, when the need arises about half way through the exercise, they could provide "master" coaching lessons for the better upcoming players.

When it can seen be that the organiser is working "miracles" and success should be coming down the pipeline ACF could show some appreciation by picking up a percentage of the total expenses. This can be negiotated beforehand. The organiser could be given an initial amount, of say $1000+ as a show of encouragment and appreciation. I don't think this unreasonable to make chess truly national.

Otherwise, if an excellent player from overseas happened to settle in NT (most likely from Asia) they would find it very discouraging and probably just retire from competition play. And the game will never go anywhere there.

If nothing is attempted ACF could be condemned whereas if something is attempted at least they tried.

But don't mention my name in all this, because worms will come out of the woodwork denigrating me because years ago I nodded off at a JCL meeting and how I attended a meeting of NSWCA uninvited though I was not informed beforehand. I am not fit for anything because of these indiscretions.

PHAT
02-07-2005, 05:11 PM
Here is a possible problem. The ACF derives all (most) its income from "rating fees" which are not meant to be 'really' linked to ratings - but are 'admin fees'. So what will happen when someone else (eg. FIDE) can offer a much BETTER rating system for a fraction of the cost?

This may be closer than anyone thinks ;)

The ACF would then be as dead as disco, which serve itself right.

The planets will align sooner or later. :uhoh:

Denis_Jessop
02-07-2005, 06:01 PM
I think that somehow they should be encouraging and supporting a state assoc for NT. Strictly speaking it is shocking that there is no assoc there. I think a minor organiser should be sent up for about 6 months to a year to get the show running, including revving up the schoools children.

This, in effect, has already been done. When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President, he had considerable contact with Terry O'Neil who was running the Darwin Chess Club. At the time Norm Taylor was running the Alice Springs Chess Club. Much at Graeme's initiative, those men incorporated the Chess Association of the Northern Territory. It was affiliated with the ACF but a representative participated in only one meeting whereafter the CANT can't be found. It was disaffiliated at the National Conference in January 2005. In the words of the classics "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" or "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", or both, if you prefer.

DJ

antichrist
02-07-2005, 07:09 PM
This, in effect, has already been done. When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President, he had considerable contact with Terry O'Neil who was running the Darwin Chess Club. At the time Norm Taylor was running the Alice Springs Chess Club. Much at Graeme's initiative, those men incorporated the Chess Association of the Northern Territory. It was affiliated with the ACF but a representative participated in only one meeting whereafter the CANT can't be found. It was disaffiliated at the National Conference in January 2005. In the words of the classics "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" or "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", or both, if you prefer.

DJ

Thanks and fair enough I suppose. When someone has nothing better to do they can attack it.

PHAT
03-07-2005, 01:46 AM
Thanks and fair enough I suppose. When someone has nothing better to do they can attack it.At the ACF AGM (Buller) I spoke for the retention of NT. It is very interesting that the only deligate to agree with me, and vote to keep NT in the ACF was from WA. Over there, they know all about how the centres of power don't want to know about perifery.

Short-sighted and inward-looking is no way to grow chess. :(

Bill Gletsos
03-07-2005, 02:40 AM
At the ACF AGM (Buller) I spoke for the retention of NT. It is very interesting that the only deligate to agree with me, and vote to keep NT in the ACF was from WA. Over there, they know all about how the centres of power don't want to know about perifery.The WA delegate never mentioned nor implied anything about centres of power and periphery, so your mentioning of it is totally irrelevant.

Short-sighted and inward-looking is no way to grow chess. :(Short sighted and inward looking had nothing to do with it.
Denis's post above clearly explains why it was disaffiliated.

Garvinator
03-07-2005, 02:47 AM
At the ACF AGM (Buller) I spoke for the retention of NT. It is very interesting that the only deligate to agree with me, and vote to keep NT in the ACF was from WA. Over there, they know all about how the centres of power don't want to know about perifery.

Short-sighted and inward-looking is no way to grow chess. :(
If my memory serves me correctly, Andrew Hardegan (WA) voted against the majority on everything except the president vote. Andrew was generally just pissed off at being at mt buller and so just protested voted on almost everything. Therefore, to claim that Andrew was a supporter of your stance is, in my opinion, not drawing the correct conclusion from a similiar voting pattern. We saw by the end of the month how much of a great representative he was for WA chess :wall: :doh: .

CAQ did not have any discussion about how we should vote on the dis-affiliation issue.

antichrist
03-07-2005, 02:47 AM
The WA delegate never mentioned nor implied anything about centres of power and periphery, so your mentioning of it is totally irrelevant.
Short sighted and inward looking had nothing to do with it.
Denis's post above clearly explains why it was disaffiliated.

Maybe there was a reason why their delegate did not attend? A bit harsh knocking them out after one miss (was it).

Maybe the WA delegate did not mention Matt's interpretation but he may have wanted the NT delegate do be kept in.

antichrist
03-07-2005, 02:49 AM
If my memory serves me correctly, Andrew Hardegan (WA) voted against the majority on everything except the president vote. Andrew was generally just pissed off at being at mt buller and so just protested voted on almost everything. We saw by the end of the month how much of a great representative he was for WA chess :wall: :doh: .

Why didn't he like Mt Buller, because it was not a capital city? He may have been wrong on everything else but correct on keeping NT registered.

Bill Gletsos
03-07-2005, 03:26 AM
Why didn't he like Mt Buller, because it was not a capital city? He may have been wrong on everything else but correct on keeping NT registered.There is no point keeping them affiliated when the affiliated organisation the CANT no longer is functioning.

Bill Gletsos
03-07-2005, 03:32 AM
Maybe there was a reason why their delegate did not attend? A bit harsh knocking them out after one miss (was it). It was not one miss. There had been no interaction from the CANT for well over 18 mths prior to them being disafffiliated.

Maybe the WA delegate did not mention Matt's interpretation but he may have wanted the NT delegate do be kept in.That is not the point. The point is that Matt's comment was based on nothing said nor implied by the WA delegate. As such Matt's comment is just a total misrepresenation of the situation.

pax
03-07-2005, 04:02 PM
Here is a possible problem. The ACF derives all (most) its income from "rating fees" which are not meant to be 'really' linked to ratings - but are 'admin fees'. So what will happen when someone else (eg. FIDE) can offer a much BETTER rating system for a fraction of the cost?

Well that certainly isn't the case at the moment. I imagine if (e.g) FIDE suddenly started offering free or massively discounted rating services, then ACF would review it's policy. Since it is extremely unlikely for the foreseeable future, I don't see the point in debating it.

Bill Gletsos
03-07-2005, 04:14 PM
Well that certainly isn't the case at the moment. I imagine if (e.g) FIDE suddenly started offering free or massively discounted rating services, then ACF would review it's policy. Since it is extremely unlikely for the foreseeable future, I don't see the point in debating it.FIDE also have no plans to drop below a 1000 rating floor. A such their system is fairly useless catering for beginners/low rated juniors. On top of that it is very slow to respond to rapidly improving players.

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2005, 02:59 AM
Here is a possible problem. The ACF derives all (most) its income from "rating fees" which are not meant to be 'really' linked to ratings - but are 'admin fees'. So what will happen when someone else (eg. FIDE) can offer a much BETTER rating system for a fraction of the cost?

I don't know, but the falling skies will be full of flying pigs when that happens. This is FIDE we're talking about here, the United Nations of chess. In terms of mathematical credibility, the FIDE rating system is decades behind the ACF's and I don't see that changing soon.

Alan Shore
06-07-2005, 10:09 AM
I don't know, but the falling skies will be full of flying pigs when that happens. This is FIDE we're talking about here, the United Nations of chess. In terms of mathematical credibility, the FIDE rating system is decades behind the ACF's and I don't see that changing soon.

Reminds me of the AFL's stance on drug-testing - they won't comply with international regulations as they believe their own system to be more efficient and fair. Just like the ratings. I go further as to say there are laws the ACF should adopt on their own too - such as keeping king captures in lightning. Personally, all tournaments I run will keep king captures as well as a few other organisers I know. Shaun Press kept the rule for the Doeberl lightning as did both Graeme Gardiner and Ian Murray in their last tournaments. Now that it is July 1, I don't see any of us bowing to FIDE over the rubbish they introduced.

arosar
18-07-2005, 08:55 PM
Youse blokes know what's happening with the ACF site?

AR