PDA

View Full Version : 2006 Australian Minor



Trent Parker
10-08-2005, 02:12 PM
Why is this event U1800 and not U1600? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it 1600 considering normally a minor would be u1600? Have Previous Australian Minors been U1800?

Rincewind
10-08-2005, 02:19 PM
Why is this event U1800 and not U1600? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it 1600 considering normally a minor would be u1600? Have Previous Australian Minors been U1800?

Have you asked Graeme or Ian Murray? Don't think either post here, regularly at least.

Trent Parker
10-08-2005, 03:31 PM
Have you asked Graeme or Ian Murray? Don't think either post here, regularly at least.

Well at least someone can answer the last part of my post :evil:

EGOR
10-08-2005, 03:41 PM
Well at least someone can answer the last part of my post :evil:
In the recent past it has been U1600.

Oepty
10-08-2005, 03:57 PM
At the last championships in Adelaide there was no minor. There was only the Championships, Reserves and Seniors
Scott

Mischa
10-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Trent....why so cross honey?

Thunderspirit
10-08-2005, 04:52 PM
Why is this event U1800 and not U1600? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it 1600 considering normally a minor would be u1600? Have Previous Australian Minors been U1800?


Trent you have posed an interesting question. In European weekenders the 'B' event or minor is U1800 so Graeme in his wisdom (and I agree that once an a while this should be considered) has decided to give it ago.

U1600 is more common in Australia because it better cuts the field in half, though 1600 is well above the halfway mark on ratings list...

Thunderspirit
10-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Trent....why so cross honey?


Trent is 1450 and so on a good day is a chance to win an U1600. U1800 maybe out of reach though (perhaps for a while...)

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Trent you have posed an interesting question. In European weekenders the 'B' event or minor is U1800 so Graeme in his wisdom (and I agree that once an a while this should be considered) has decided to give it ago.He may also have been influenced by the low numbers in the Mt. Buller Minor which was U1600.

Rincewind
10-08-2005, 05:21 PM
He may also have been influenced by the low numbers in the Mt. Buller Minor which was U1600.

Although my September rating will enable me to easily qualify for the u1800 event if I was to play I think I'd prefer the Major as it has a longer time control and only one game per day. Also the level of competition should be stronger. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks like that. The four current entrants comprise of 2 unrated players and another two with ACF ratings of 1660 and 1444. It remains to be seen exactly how popular the minor event will be this time around doesn't appear to be any entrants as yet.

Interestingly, it looks like at least one (U12) junior has been entered in the major in preference to the junior this year.

Ian Rout
10-08-2005, 07:33 PM
I imagine the reasoning is that the Major runs for the full fortnight, so if the Minor was U/1600 then players 1600-1800 who can't/won't come for that period won't play at all as there's nothing for them.

On the other hand an U/2000 is unlikely to draw a big crowd as the Major is a de facto U/2150.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 07:39 PM
Although my September rating will enable me to easily qualify for the u1800 event if I was to play I think I'd prefer the Major as it has a longer time control and only one game per day. Also the level of competition should be stronger. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks like that. The four current entrants comprise of 2 unrated players and another two with ACF ratings of 1660 and 1444. It remains to be seen exactly how popular the minor event will be this time around doesn't appear to be any entrants as yet.

Interestingly, it looks like at least one (U12) junior has been entered in the major in preference to the junior this year.

RW, you can win the minor mate to compensate for your last comp. Some people deliberately lose games so that they can get into the prize money. Enjoy while you can.

arosar
10-08-2005, 07:41 PM
In the mailbox today is a very nicely done brochure about the 2006 event. It's a very simply done document. It has everything I need to know in there. Unlike some wannabe organisers, with their expensive and useless brochure, it looks like this mob in QLD really know what they're doing.

AR

Rincewind
10-08-2005, 07:42 PM
RW, you can win the minor mate to compensate for your last comp. Some people deliberately lose games so that they can get into the prize money. Enjoy while you can.

Certainly not my intention as I said, if I play, it would be in the major. However I have heard of sandbagging occurring. Difficult to prove.

Rincewind
10-08-2005, 07:43 PM
In the mailbox today is a very nicely done brochure about the 2006 event. It's a very simply done document. It has everything I need to know in there.

Or you can download it from here: http://www.*******2006.com/entry.htm

arosar
10-08-2005, 07:50 PM
Or you can download it from here: http://www.*******2006.com/entry.htm

Genius! Top mob....know what they're talking and doing.

AR

Thunderspirit
11-08-2005, 04:49 PM
In the mailbox today is a very nicely done brochure about the 2006 event. It's a very simply done document. It has everything I need to know in there. Unlike some wannabe organisers, with their expensive and useless brochure, it looks like this mob in QLD really know what they're doing.

AR

Everything Graeme touches turns to gold. The event will be a model Australian Championship. He is great organiser and a model for anyone who wants to learn.

Garvinator
11-08-2005, 04:53 PM
So that is how it is going to be for the next four months hey, the Graeme Gardiner mutual admiration society :rolleyes: :whistle:

Thunderspirit
11-08-2005, 05:05 PM
So that is how it is going to be for the next four months hey, the Graeme Gardiner mutual admiration society :rolleyes: :whistle:


U could learn a lot from Graeme, Garvin. If you want to learn how to be a good organiser, he's the man to see in QLD...

Trent Parker
11-08-2005, 05:17 PM
I probably wouldn't go to the Championships anyway..... expecially if i get work soon..... I just had never heard of minor as being u1800

WhiteElephant
11-08-2005, 05:24 PM
I probably wouldn't go to the Championships anyway..... expecially if i get work soon..... I just had never heard of minor as being u1800

Why not get some lessons and win the U/1800?

four four two
24-09-2005, 10:40 AM
So everything Graeme touches turns to gold eh Liberace? Then why are people still paying crazy prices to enter?$160 entry fee when top prize in the major is $1000 is a TOTAL RIP OFF. :evil: At least in the USA when people pay this kind of fee they get at least 3 times the prize money we get! It is up to the organisers to arrange decent sponsorship for the tournament,instead they keep slugging the average player to provide the bulk of the prize money for the championship. This is the primary reason why we dont have a national championship EVERY year,if they totally screwed the average club player every year the entry rates would drop off fairly quickly. Can you name me any other country in the developed world which has a national championship once every two years? :hmm:

Garvinator
24-09-2005, 12:08 PM
ahhh i love not being an organiser this year :owned:

pax
24-09-2005, 02:05 PM
So everything Graeme touches turns to gold eh Liberace? Then why are people still paying crazy prices to enter?$160 entry fee when top prize in the major is $1000 is a TOTAL RIP OFF. :evil: At least in the USA when people pay this kind of fee they get at least 3 times the prize money we get! It is up to the organisers to arrange decent sponsorship for the tournament,instead they keep slugging the average player to provide the bulk of the prize money for the championship. This is the primary reason why we dont have a national championship EVERY year,if they totally screwed the average club player every year the entry rates would drop off fairly quickly. Can you name me any other country in the developed world which has a national championship once every two years? :hmm:


What a load of rubbish. The adult 'main' events have a total prizefund of nearly $15000. If they get the same number of entries as Mt Buller, then they will be returning substantially *more* in prizes than they recieve in entries. Obviously they will expect substantially more entries than that, but the return will still be very good.

Yes, the entries in the minor events will subsidise the Championship to a certain extent, but this is *no* different to any other event (Doeberl Cup, other weekenders, Aus Open) - the rank-and-file players contribute to the major prizes which they have virtually no chance of winning.

Given that the minor is u/1800 this year, there will almost certainly be a smaller proportion in the Major than previously, so a $4000 prize pool looks excellent to me.

PHAT
24-09-2005, 02:18 PM
It is up to the organisers to arrange decent sponsorship for the tournament,instead they keep slugging the average player to provide the bulk of the prize money for the championship.


:clap:

I have run a tornament for three years with a low entry fee ($20) and low prizes - but returning >100% of the total fees. The entries are low, inspite of the venue being plush, the atmosphere friendly and the actual event itself being damn near to faultless. The mix I have supplied is not pulling the players. The ONLY element that I can identify that could be the problem is the low prizes.

This is disappointing because either:
A majority of players are money grubbing peasents, or
Top end players are money grubbing and don't come, so the remainer don't come so they can play them.

Next year I will have to, maybe, organise a big purse and ensure/advertise confirmed entries of top players.

I think the NSWCA events are suffering from the same disease as my event. In fact, perhaps the body of chess is suffering broad metastasis of professionalism.

PHAT
24-09-2005, 02:25 PM
Yes, the entries in the minor events will subsidise the Championship to a certain extent, but this is *no* different to any other event (Doeberl Cup, other weekenders, Aus Open)

EXCEPT for my "CommonMan"


- the rank-and-file players contribute to the major prizes which they have virtually no chance of winning.


Now THAT is nothing for us to be proud of. :hand:

Alan Shore
24-09-2005, 07:16 PM
So everything Graeme touches turns to gold eh Liberace? Then why are people still paying crazy prices to enter?$160 entry fee when top prize in the major is $1000 is a TOTAL RIP OFF. :evil: At least in the USA when people pay this kind of fee they get at least 3 times the prize money we get! It is up to the organisers to arrange decent sponsorship for the tournament,instead they keep slugging the average player to provide the bulk of the prize money for the championship. This is the primary reason why we dont have a national championship EVERY year,if they totally screwed the average club player every year the entry rates would drop off fairly quickly. Can you name me any other country in the developed world which has a national championship once every two years? :hmm:

LOL!!

Hey, you should look at the various entry fees for GG's (Not ggray) events...

But fear not - it IS safe to enter this event since I will be trapesing around Europe in January and not winning this tournament like I would normally. ;)

Garvinator
21-12-2005, 07:52 PM
If entries were to close now for the Minor, this would be the field.


No Name Feder Loc

1. CHEUNG, Ernest QLD 1797
2. WELLER, Tony QLD 1781
3. FITZPATRICK, Andrew VIC 1742
4. WILKINSON, Leo QLD 1733
5. POULTON, Chris ACT 1714
6. HOVING, Eliot NSW 1710
7. ALKIN, John QLD 1638
8. CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad QLD 1605
9. STOKES, Mark C QLD 1601
10. MESSINA, David ACT 1574
11. MOLLARD, Max J VIC 1574
12. DAVIDSON, Nathan P QLD 1562
13. COOKE, Tristrom SA 1561
14. DICKSON, Ian C NSW 1546
15. DUGGAN, Howard QLD 1546
16. STEWART, Craig A QLD 1530
17. TANNER, Greg QLD 1517
18. BISSON, Danny Wayne NSW 1507
19. PARKER, Trent NSW 1490
20. GOODWIN, Bob QLD 1400
21. NUTT, Jeff QLD 1337
22. BOOY, Peter QLD 1320
23. HARTLEY-HOLL, Clifford J QLD 1301
24. WATERS, Mick QLD 1295
25. BENDER, Peter G QLD 1283
26. KOSPARTOV, Nick QLD 1268
27. CHRISTENSEN, Joshua NSW 1267
28. WILKIE, Mary E NSW 1249
29. LAU, Tony NSW 1227
30. HUMPHREY, John QLD 1216
31. SANDERSON, Christopher SA 1159
32. DE VERE, Cameron QLD 1108
33. HUGHES, Peter J SA 1102
34. THOMPSON, Cameron M QLD 972
35. LOW, Brandon SA 969
36. JOHNSTON, Andrew QLD 960
37. THOMPSON, Ingrid QLD 960
38. ROGERS, Jim QLD 764
39. BEELEY, ROBERT Qld
40. FITZPATRICK, LACHLAN Qld
41. GILPIN, MATTHEW Qld
42. LESKIEWICZ, LECH Qld
43. MOFFATT, BLAKE Qld
44. WILLIAMS, RUDY Wa

Garvinator
21-12-2005, 07:56 PM
and the first round pairings would be if everyone is playing the first round (assuming seed number 1 is white)


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 CHEUNG, Ernest 1797 [0] : HARTLEY-HOLL, Clifford J 1301 [0]
2 WATERS, Mick 1295 [0] : WELLER, Tony 1781 [0]
3 FITZPATRICK, Andrew 1742 [0] : BENDER, Peter G 1283 [0]
4 KOSPARTOV, Nick 1268 [0] : WILKINSON, Leo 1733 [0]
5 POULTON, Chris 1714 [0] : CHRISTENSEN, Joshua 1267 [0]
6 WILKIE, Mary E 1249 [0] : HOVING, Eliot 1710 [0]
7 ALKIN, John 1638 [0] : LAU, Tony 1227 [0]
8 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] : CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [0]
9 STOKES, Mark C 1601 [0] : SANDERSON, Christopher 1159 [0]
10 DE VERE, Cameron 1108 [0] : MESSINA, David 1574 [0]
11 MOLLARD, Max J 1574 [0] : HUGHES, Peter J 1102 [0]
12 THOMPSON, Cameron M 972 [0] : DAVIDSON, Nathan P 1562 [0]
13 COOKE, Tristrom 1561 [0] : LOW, Brandon 969 [0]
14 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [0] : DICKSON, Ian C 1546 [0]
15 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [0] : THOMPSON, Ingrid 960 [0]
16 ROGERS, Jim 764 [0] : STEWART, Craig A 1530 [0]
17 TANNER, Greg 1517 [0] : BEELEY, ROBERT [0]
18 FITZPATRICK, LACHLAN [0] : BISSON, Danny Wayne 1507 [0]
19 PARKER, Trent 1490 [0] : GILPIN, MATTHEW [0]
20 LESKIEWICZ, LECH [0] : GOODWIN, Bob 1400 [0]
21 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [0] : MOFFATT, BLAKE [0]
22 WILLIAMS, RUDY [0] : BOOY, Peter 1320 [0]

ursogr8
21-12-2005, 10:30 PM
and the first round pairings would be if everyone is playing the first round (assuming seed number 1 is white)


No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 CHEUNG, Ernest 1797 [0] : HARTLEY-HOLL, Clifford J 1301 [0]
2 WATERS, Mick 1295 [0] : WELLER, Tony 1781 [0]
3 FITZPATRICK, Andrew 1742 [0] : BENDER, Peter G 1283 [0]
4 KOSPARTOV, Nick 1268 [0] : WILKINSON, Leo 1733 [0]
5 POULTON, Chris 1714 [0] : CHRISTENSEN, Joshua 1267 [0]
6 WILKIE, Mary E 1249 [0] : HOVING, Eliot 1710 [0]
7 ALKIN, John 1638 [0] : LAU, Tony 1227 [0]
8 HUMPHREY, John 1216 [0] : CHELEBICHANIN, Nenad 1605 [0]
9 STOKES, Mark C 1601 [0] : SANDERSON, Christopher 1159 [0]
10 DE VERE, Cameron 1108 [0] : MESSINA, David 1574 [0]
11 MOLLARD, Max J 1574 [0] : HUGHES, Peter J 1102 [0]
12 THOMPSON, Cameron M 972 [0] : DAVIDSON, Nathan P 1562 [0]
13 COOKE, Tristrom 1561 [0] : LOW, Brandon 969 [0]
14 JOHNSTON, Andrew 960 [0] : DICKSON, Ian C 1546 [0]
15 DUGGAN, Howard 1546 [0] : THOMPSON, Ingrid 960 [0]
16 ROGERS, Jim 764 [0] : STEWART, Craig A 1530 [0]
17 TANNER, Greg 1517 [0] : BEELEY, ROBERT [0]
18 FITZPATRICK, LACHLAN [0] : BISSON, Danny Wayne 1507 [0]
19 PARKER, Trent 1490 [0] : GILPIN, MATTHEW [0]
20 LESKIEWICZ, LECH [0] : GOODWIN, Bob 1400 [0]
21 NUTT, Jeff 1337 [0] : MOFFATT, BLAKE [0]
22 WILLIAMS, RUDY [0] : BOOY, Peter 1320 [0]




507

jase
21-12-2005, 11:44 PM
$160 entry fee when top prize in the major is $1000 is a TOTAL RIP OFF.


Given that the minor is u/1800 this year, there will almost certainly be a smaller proportion in the Major than previously, so a $4000 prize pool looks excellent to me.

I've snipped the diatribe from 442 down to his actual point.
I agree.

I think that a $1,000 first prize for a $160 entry fee is poor value. Whilst I support the principle of entry fees in the lower categories providing a subsidy for the top echelon, the prize fund/entry fee ratio in the Major goes beyond what I would consider appropriate.

Entries into the Major presently total almost 60. Entry fees might amount to about $10,000, of which less than 40% will be returned via prizemoney.

pax
22-12-2005, 11:39 AM
Entries into the Major presently total almost 60. Entry fees might amount to about $10,000, of which less than 40% will be returned via prizemoney.

I'll just point out that a tournament can only advertise prizes based on the minimum number that they might expect to play. Given that only 87 players took part in the Open and Minor in Mt Buller, the minimum number that you might budget on for the 2006 Major is probably 40. Even in Adelaide in 2004, about 70 played the Major, but there was *no Minor*.

Garvinator
22-12-2005, 11:48 AM
please take discussions about major prizes to the major thread, this is for the minor tournament

Ian Rout
22-12-2005, 02:51 PM
and the first round pairings would be if everyone is playing the first round (assuming seed number 1 is white)



(Draw)


A minor point to note is that under the Swiss pairing rules

If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible before the start of the tournament.

Often arbiters just drop the unrateds to the bottom and in alphabetical order, by putting them in as blank whereupon Swiss Perfect treats them as being rated zero. In the absence of other information this is reaonable (though probably done through not knowing the rules) since on the balance of probability an unrated player would be weaker than the rated players. However it's open to the arbiter to seed the unrated players above the bottom.

four four two
23-12-2005, 11:58 AM
Pax, in terms of numbers Mt Buller was simply a failure. It had one of the lowest turn outs in the last 20 years.

Brisbane,as a location, was NEVER in any doubt of getting more entries than Mt Buller. The fact that the organisers of Brisbane fiddled with the rating criteria for the "minor" ,thus reducing the likely size of the field for the major,is a problem that they should have considered. But then again they may feel that the players in the major will simply take what ever is offered to them.

Any organiser who values the competitors should offer at least 50% of the total entry fees back in prizemoney...you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone. :whistle:

PHAT
23-12-2005, 03:15 PM
Someone else stated:


Championship $8000 prizes
30 entrants, of whom 10 get in free as GMs, IMs, WIM
Leaves 20 folk paying $200 each for a total of $4,000.
Percentage 200%.

Major has $3800 prizes and probably a 50% return to winner-group.

Minor has $1950 prizes a less than 50% return.

This disparity is indecent.

When is the ACF going to release a "Recommended Procol for Prize Allocation." It shouldn't be maditory, but used as a guide. In the meantime we get this (and other) rip-off.

That part of the prize pool contributed by fees, should be divided pro rata of full entry equivalents. - ie prizes proportional to the collected fees from each division/section/grade. However, the culture is to have a BIG top end attractor. The simple solution is, use sponsors cash to pay only the top end. Face it, the majority of us are not where the sponsors wish to see there money go. They want a big headline and prestigue. Make sure they get it. The other 90% of the players just want to play chess and maybe win a dollars from there peers. That 90% do not generally feel positive about being paracitised.

pax
23-12-2005, 06:17 PM
This disparity is indecent.

When is the ACF going to release a "Recommended Procol for Prize Allocation." It shouldn't be maditory, but used as a guide. In the meantime we get this (and other) rip-off.


Come off it Sweeney. This is the National Championship, not the bloody Common Man.

The big shebang is the Australian Championship, and the majority of participants appreciate that they are (in part) supporting Australia's Premier Chess event by playing in the Major and Minor events. Part of the attraction of playing in the Minor is being able to watch Australia's top players play, and participating in the atmosphere of the whole event.

The funny thing is that we don't seem to have this discussion for "Open" events where the top prizes typically massively outweigh rating prizes. Why? Because Joe Bloggs rated 1650 has a theoretical (but practically non-existent) chance of winning one of those prizes.

The main point though, is that people vote with their feet. The prizefund was advertised well in advance, and the players are turning up in record numbers. What does that say?

p.s How many players turned up to the Common Man again? :hmm:

PHAT
23-12-2005, 07:04 PM
The big shebang is the Australian Championship, and the majority of participants appreciate that they are (in part) supporting Australia's Premier Chess event by playing in the Major and Minor events.

What do you mean by "appreciate?" 1. they know something or 2. they like something?

They certainly know they are playing AT the primo chess event but they also know that that are not IN the primo event.



Part of the attraction of playing in the Minor is being able to watch Australia's top players play, {yawn} and that would be 10% of we 90%

and participating in the atmosphere of the whole event.
True, but why do they have to subsidise the top end? Participating is one wish, but paying a subsidy is a rip-off.


The funny thing is that we don't seem to have this discussion for "Open" events where the top prizes typically massively outweigh rating prizes. Why? Actually we do and have had those debates - must have been before you lobbed in here.

The main point though, is that people vote with their feet. The prizefund was advertised well in advance, and the players are turning up in record numbers. What does that say? It says nothing much. The reason peaople are going to the event will not be those things alone. It will be different combinations of different attactions, some that you have not mentioned.


p.s How many players turned up to the Common Man again? :hmm:

Yes, I have already agreed (elsewhere) that the format is a dud for putting bums on seats. I tried it (three years is a good trial) and it failed. However, I have a new idea, wait and see.

pax
23-12-2005, 08:20 PM
{yawn} and that would be 10% of we 90%


Rubbish. It's a major factor.



True, but why do they have to subsidise the top end? Participating is one wish, but paying a subsidy is a rip-off.


Without some subsidy, there wouldn't *be* a top end. How many GMs and IMs are going to turn up for a Championship with 2 grand prizemoney? And who is going to turn up to a side event when the Championship has Bolens as top seed (sorry Jonny)?



Actually we do and have had those debates - must have been before you lobbed in here.


I've been here since the beginning mate. It's funny, now that you mention it, I *do* remember you bleating on a bit. I don't remember a serious debate though. :hmm:

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 02:32 AM
I've been here since the beginning mate. It's funny, now that you mention it, I *do* remember you bleating on a bit. I don't remember a serious debate though. :hmm:

pax
CC Grandmaster

Join Date: June 2004

:hmm:

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 08:01 AM
pax
CC Grandmaster

Join Date: June 2004

:hmm:

You realise you only have to register to post. Guests can read.

PHAT
24-12-2005, 08:07 AM
Rubbish. [gawping at GMs leaning on their elbows is] a major factor. There is usually between 0 and a dozen onlookers to a GM game. Yes, even I take a Captain Cook. On average it is about 4 of the usual suspects. The vast majority don't give a stuff.


Without some subsidy, there wouldn't *be* a top end. Not quite right. Without big prizes there would not be a top end. I am saying that that prize monoey should ONLY come from sponsorships, not by milking the ordinary players.
I've been here since the beginning mate. It's funny, now that you mention it, I *do* remember you bleating on a bit. I don't remember a serious debate though. :hmm: :rolleyes: It is usual for narrow minded conservatives to say that a debate is not "serious" when they don't agree with the arguements.

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 11:52 AM
You realise you only have to register to post. Guests can read.

No, for you see I've been living under a rock.

With my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears.

On Mars.


Idiot!!!

:rolleyes:

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 12:04 PM
No, for you see I've been living under a rock.

With my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears.

On Mars.


Idiot!!!

:rolleyes:

Such self-deprecation really isn't necessary. ;)

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 02:43 PM
On Mars.
how did you get broadband on mars?

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 02:49 PM
There is usually between 0 and a dozen onlookers to a GM game.
This is true for a normal tournament where there is very limited to no room for viewing. Also take into account how many ppl are in the tournament to start. Then combine that with how many are still playing and it doesnt leave many to watch a gm game.

The Australian championship/open is very different as ppl can watch the top 5 boards at least in the comfort of their own homes. Also combined with this is that there is usually been some area set aside for at least one monitor so that the dgt board games can be viewed in the tournament hall.



On average it is about 4 of the usual suspects. The vast majority don't give a stuff.
answered above I believe.


Not quite right. Without big prizes there would not be a top end. I am saying that that prize monoey should ONLY come from sponsorships, not by milking the ordinary players. :rolleyes:
The prize money is coming from both ordinary players and sponsorships. When the prize funds were first allocated, there was no clue as to how much sponsorship money would be attained.

I am not going to defend or criticise how the prize pools have been allocated as I wasnt the one who was potentially having to pay out of my own pocket to finance the events if they ran at a large loss.

This is no longer just a discussion about the minor and the fields and therefore should be moved to a different/new thread.

pax
24-12-2005, 02:52 PM
I am saying that that prize monoey should ONLY come from sponsorships, not by milking the ordinary players.

And if sponsorship money cannot be secured, you gut Australia's premier event? Nice one.

pax
24-12-2005, 03:02 PM
pax
CC Grandmaster

Join Date: June 2004

:hmm:

Mate, that's only since Chesschat. I've been reading and posting on the various incarnations of this board since long before I moved back to Australia at the end of 2003.

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 03:33 PM
Mate, that's only since Chesschat. I've been reading and posting on the various incarnations of this board since long before I moved back to Australia at the end of 2003.

Did you ever read this (http://www.chessnetwork.com/ncn/bb/oldbb4/tocproto.htm) BB?

http://www.chessnetwork.com/ncn/bb/oldbb4/00000002.htm

I found a post where Matt applied to be a Mod, hehe.

PHAT
24-12-2005, 05:35 PM
And if sponsorship money cannot be secured, you gut Australia's premier event? Nice one.


If an organiser cannot get sponsorship for the Australia's premier event, they should not have been granted the bid. :rolleyes: If that organiser stuffs up, then the it is they who have done the gutting. It would be them who has to wear the social aprobriation for having done so.

Your insistance that the majority be milked is only so organisers can get away with being slack lazy incompetents. If Australian chess is to go ahead, it needs its main organisers to actually do more than organise the tournament per se. They need to get media attention and hence sponsorship.

Your status quo attitude is a receipy for virtual extinction.

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 05:57 PM
If an organiser cannot get sponsorship for the Australia's premier event, they should not have been granted the bid. :rolleyes: If that organiser stuffs up, then the it is they who have done the gutting. It would be them who has to wear the social aprobriation for having done so.

Your insistance that the majority be milked is only so organisers can get away with being slack lazy incompetents. If Australian chess is to go ahead, it needs its main organisers to actually do more than organise the tournament per se. They need to get media attention and hence sponsorship.

Your status quo attitude is a receipy for virtual extinction.
nice attitude, not :hand: while the status quo attitude sucks, this is no better. This is what the organisers get in the majority, criticism for putting up their hand by parties unhappy with how things are being done and not hearing enough praise.

Is it any wonder that there is no bid for 2007 australian open. There is no national direction at all and the acf buck passes hoping that someone else will do it and someone else is to blame.

Also why would an organiser want to put up there hand when all it causes is heartache and getting pissed off. An organiser decides that they will make some money out of donating their time, then get punished for that. An organiser does it for the hell of it and because they want to and they get criticised for that.

Rarely do you hear public support for an organiser and everyone wonders why the two big australian tournaments struggle for organisers :evil:

You offer nothing but criticism Matt.

PHAT
25-12-2005, 07:15 AM
nice attitude, not :hand: while the status quo attitude sucks, this is no better.
Yes it is.
There is no national direction at all and the acf buck passes hoping that someone else will do it and someone else is to blame. Agreed


Also why would an organiser want to put up there hand when all it causes is heartache and getting pissed off. Because we organisers think it is right and proper thing to do - to help out our chess community.
An organiser decides that they will make some money out of donating their time, then get punished for that. While ever Australian chess remains an amatuer sport run but voluteers like us, profitting should be eschewed.
An organiser does it for the hell of it and because they want to and they get criticised for that. Nope, I do not agree that that is what happens.

Rarely do you hear public support for an organiser True
and everyone wonders why the two big australian tournaments struggle for organisers :evil: Name just three people who do this wondering. You won't find them. the whole universe knows it is because the ACF is a toilet floater


You offer nothing but criticism Matt.

Cut it out. I also give plenty of suggestions that are net labour nuetral or plain uncommon sence. Stop behaving like a prima donna. If you put your hand up to do something or say something be aware that you will always cop more abuse than praise - it is normal and natural. I wear it, so you wear it too.

Garvinator
25-12-2005, 01:04 PM
While ever Australian chess remains an amatuer sport run but voluteers like us, profitting should be eschewed.
Chess will always remain a volunteer amateur sport while almost everyone has to do everything for nothing. This means it will always be a second priority.
People should be paid for their time when this is possible.


Stop behaving like a prima donna.

Add it to the list of names I have been called. It is a long list, so you better had use small font to remain on one page ;)


If you put your hand up to do something or say something be aware that you will always cop more abuse than praise - it is normal and natural. I wear it, so you wear it too.
and it is the reason why I am giving a lot of things in ACF chess a big miss.

RuyLopez
25-12-2005, 06:15 PM
I am saying that that prize money should ONLY come from sponsorships, not by milking the ordinary players.

what do you mean, milking the ordinary players? its the players' choice to play in the tournament, and so they should be winning the money from the tournament.

It's the organisers' jobs to use that money in the prize fund and also recieve some profit. Thats what jobs are about, balance.

For what reason can we guarantee that sponsors will sponsor the tournament? It makes more sense for the players to contribute to the prize fund than a separate source. It doesn't do the sponsor any good for it to contirbute to something that has nothing to do with itself.

So I think that the advertised guaranteed prizes should come only from the entry fees, but if the organiser can find sponsors than he may increase the prize fund if he wishes.

Garvinator
25-12-2005, 08:03 PM
It's the organisers' jobs to use that money in the prize fund and also recieve some profit. Thats what jobs are about, balance.

So I think that the advertised guaranteed prizes should come only from the entry fees, but if the organiser can find sponsors than he may increase the prize fund if he wishes.
oh dear, are you going to cop it or what from sweeney. You mentioned naughty words :P ie profit from a chess tournament :whistle:

One of the difficulties of running the australian open/champs is that sponsorship levels are very uncertain when the organisers start out, therefore they dont have much of an idea what to budget for and how many prizes to award and to what level.

Factor into this that you have appearance money for some players and other deals and it starts to become very much a guessing game.

PHAT
25-12-2005, 08:33 PM
Add it to the list of names I have been called. It is a long list, so you better had use small font to remain on one page ;)

GREy , MATe I am so sorr ythat ypou thing i'm calling you names . I am not reelydoing that. I know your are tryin g reely hard and doing what you can. Thanks from alloff us who understsnd. :-=) i con cider you one of the goog gyus.

Garvinator
25-12-2005, 09:02 PM
sweeney is posting drunk again :rolleyes:

PHAT
25-12-2005, 10:22 PM
sweeney is posting drunk again :rolleyes:

And that means exactly what? You get the trutyh? or you ignore it >?.

ElevatorEscapee
26-12-2005, 07:23 AM
Although my September rating will enable me to easily qualify for the u1800 event if I was to play I think I'd prefer the Major as it has a longer time control and only one game per day. ...

A friend of mine has chosen to play in the Minor because of the same reason! (ie the two games per day)! :D

By being held over only one week rather than two, competing in the Minor means less of a commitment of time and energy to the event (and therefore less time away from home, lesser accommodation costs, etc). This may be an attraction to those players who could not commit to the entire two weeks for the Major.

It will be interesting to see the size of the fields for both the Major and Minor this year. :)

four four two
26-12-2005, 12:48 PM
Ruy Lopez,do you understand how most tournaments ,like the australian championship/open, are organised overseas? :hmm:

The first thing the organisers do is GET the sponsorship organised,THEN work out how much prize money is to be allocated after all the organising costs.
They dont rely on getting x amount of entries in the supporting tournament to guarantee the prizes for the championship.

Lets look at this years British championship and the major section.

The entry fee for this years British major section was 80 pounds,the prizes were as follows...1st 1,000pounds, 2nd 500 pounds, 3rd 250 pounds ,4th 150 pounds, and 5th 100 pounds. The main difference between the structure of their prizes and ours is that they have no rating groups,the prize money is a little higher for the british players.

Now the entry fee for the British championship is twice the amount of Australia's championship[165 pounds],but the prize money[22,000 pounds] is over 5 times the amount. This is ONLY possible because of well organised sponsorship,the entries for the british major section could never hope to provide such a prize fund.

I dont expect the Australian championship to get that level of sponsorship anytime soon,it takes quite a few years to build that kind of relationship with potential sponsors. I also dont have a problem with an organiser taking a REASONABLE fee for organising an annual national event.

But the point here is ,that the british organisers are enhusiastic amatuer organisers not unlike people in australia,they are not full time professional chess organisers/business people. They do however realise that it takes MONTHS OF PLANNING to get good and reliable sponsorship.

Potential organisers of Australian championships/opens should be giving themselves at least 6 months preparation time in order to get a good and reliable sponsorship deal,only then should they present their proposal to the ACF. It seems crazy to me that a tournament should be awarded to any organiser without the sponsorship deal already GUARANTEED,half baked promises which dont occur shouldnt be enough to award someone an annual tournament.

And relying on high entry fees from the "middle" players to provide the prize fund for the top group because you dont have a well organised sponsorship deal is in my opinion counter productive. Surely all organisers should be trying to INCREASE the participation rate in their tournaments. While the entry fee is not the the biggest concern for potential entrants,to say it is of no concern would be misleading at best.

Trent Parker
01-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Uh oh. Fires in Gosford and Woy woy areas.... hope it doesn[t cut the rail line......

jenni
04-01-2006, 07:51 AM
I would like to congratulate all minor participants on the respect they showed for the juniors.

The morning minor round starts 90 minutes after the start of the juniors and they are playing in the same room. With such a large number of participants there was potential for a lot of noise and disruption as they entered, but it didn't happen.

I have the duty of keeping the entrance to the room quiet, as noise echoes into the room - there are a few juniors who I am going to shred into little bits before the end of the tournament. (and a few coaches with very loud voices:) )

Garvinator
04-01-2006, 08:07 AM
I have the duty of keeping the entrance to the room quiet, as noise echoes into the room - there are a few juniors who I am going to shred into little bits before the end of the tournament. (and a few coaches with very loud voices:) )
i would like a ticket to this please :):):)

Kaitlin
04-01-2006, 08:42 AM
You could have some T-Shirts made up Jenni - like

................ I survived the ...................
Australian Junior Chess Championships 2006
Brisbane 28 December 2005 to 9 January 2006
...... without being shredded by Jenni........

and ask them if they want to buy one while they still have a small chance :buttkick:

Trent Parker
06-01-2006, 04:26 AM
Seeing that no one is paying attention to the minor....

Here are the standings.


1 Craven, Mark QLD 1718 5
2 Fitzpatrick, Andrew VIC 1742 5
3 Lam, Anthony QLD 1683 5
4 Weller, Tony QLD 1781 5
5 Hoving, Eliot NSW 1710 4.5
6 Ali, Mosaddeque ACT 1726 4.5
7 Cheung, Ernest QLD 1797 4.5
8 Poulton, Chris ACT 1714 4.5
9 Stokes, Mark QLD 1601 4
10 Stokes, Richard NSW 1461 4
11 Wan, Dennis NSW 0 4
12 Wilkinson, Leo QLD 1733 4
13 Dickson, Ian NSW 1546 4
14 Parker, Trent NSW 1490 4
15 Bisson, Danny NSW 1507 4
16 Marks, Joe ACT 1494 4
17 Davidson, Nathan QLD 1562 3.5
18 Stewart, Craig QLD 1530 3.5
19 Alkin, John QLD 1638 3.5
20 Kospartov, Nick QLD 1268 3.5
21 Duggan, Howard QLD 1546 3.5
22 Chelebichanin, Nenad QLD 1605 3
23 Messina, David ACT 1574 3
24 Booy, Peter QLD 1320 3
25 Bender, Peter QLD 1283 3
26 Gilpin, Matthew QLD 0 3
27 Matheson, Rhys QLD 1406 3
28 Nutt, Jeff QLD 1337 3
29 Mollard, Max VIC 1574 3
30 Lau, Tony NSW 1227 3
31 Waters, Mick QLD 1295 3
32 McGowan, Daniel NSW 1248 3
33 Moffatt, Blake QLD 0 3
34 Wilkie, Mary NSW 1249 2.5
35 Cooke, Tristrom SA 1561 2.5
36 Leskiewicz, Lech QLD 0 2.5
37 Low, Brandon SA 969 2.5
38 Humphrey, John QLD 1216 2.5
39 Christensen, Joshua NSW 1267 2.5
40 Marks, David QLD 1359 2
41 Goodwin, Bob QLD 1400 2
42 Rogers, Jim QLD 764 2
43 De Vere, Cameron QLD 1108 2
44 Hartley-Holl, Cliff QLD 1301 2
45 Borrill, Mark QLD 731 2
46 Sanderson, Christopher SA 1159 2
47 Hughes, Peter SA 1102 2
48 Hurse, Lachlan QLD 0 2
49 Soul, David NSW 1003 1.5
50 Beeley, Robert QLD 0 1.5
51 Tanner, Greg QLD 1517 1.5
52 Fitzpatrick, Lachlan QLD 0 1
53 Williams, Rudy WA 0 1
54 Thompson, Ingrid QLD 960 0
55 Thompson, Cameron QLD 972 0

Phil Bourke
06-01-2006, 12:26 PM
We are paying attention, keep up the good work Trent.

Phil Bourke
07-01-2006, 09:25 PM
Does anyone know this Trent Parker that is sitting in equal fourth on 5.5 in the Minor?
Good job, keep it going.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2006, 09:38 PM
Does anyone know this Trent Parker that is sitting in equal fourth on 5.5 in the Minor?Yes. He is the poster "the chess nut" on here.

arosar
07-01-2006, 09:57 PM
1.5/2 today for Trent. Must be thanks to that deep and oh-so-noisy sleep last night. Bad for me as I'm directly above the bastard.

AR

Trent Parker
07-01-2006, 10:09 PM
:uhoh: sorry.....

Just wake me in future......

:D

arosar
07-01-2006, 10:15 PM
No worries man....I was actually wide awake, laughing quietly to myself. I'm going to the Casino in a minute.

Now, is it just me, or is service in Brisbane really, really slow and inattentive?

AR

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2006, 10:19 PM
No worries man....I was actually wide awake, laughing quietly to myself. I'm going to the Casino in a minute.So did you run into your mate Garvin?

Garvinator
07-01-2006, 10:21 PM
So did you run into your mate Garvin?
nope : )

Trent Parker
07-01-2006, 10:25 PM
What!? you didn't run into each other.....?

Oh i'll have to introduce you garvin! :D

Hmm i'll ave my camera ready.... :lol:

Garvinator
07-01-2006, 10:32 PM
Hmm i'll ave my camera ready.... :lol:
please dont

Rhubarb
08-01-2006, 01:51 AM
Yes. He is the poster "the chess nut" on here.Bill, so Trent Parker is "the chess nut", is he?

Yo, Chess Chat people! Merry New Christmas!! A lot of people I have to reply to when I get a chance back in Sydney (my good mate starter's even reopened the real footy thread : ) )

jenni
08-01-2006, 06:39 PM
No worries man....I was actually wide awake, laughing quietly to myself. I'm going to the Casino in a minute.

Now, is it just me, or is service in Brisbane really, really slow and inattentive?

AR
It is pretty laid back here, but I am finding people rather nice. Cars stop for you when you try and cross roads. We caught a bus the other day and weren't sure if we had the right one and then didn't know what the fare was - the driver let all 4 of us on without paying and said he hoped we enjoyed our holiday when we got off.

Shannon passed out at a coffee shop a week ago (walking into town in the heat without any breakfast). She was well looking after - ambulance called Tony and I contacted. So all in all I don't have any complaints (even if service is a tinsy bit slow sometimes).

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2006, 06:39 PM
Bill, so Trent Parker is "the chess nut", is he?Well, Greg mate, you may now it but not everyone is as observant as you. ;)

Phil Bourke
10-01-2006, 11:14 PM
Well done Trent, bit of a hiccup there, but all in all a reasonable tournament.
You can give us a blow by blow description, but remember we have the pgn files to verify the accuracy of your statements : )
How about a few of the more memorable moments that us unfortunates weren't able to view on the DGT boards : )

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2006, 03:07 PM
No Name Feder Loc Id Loc Score Exp. Rav Rprfm

1. Cheung, Ernest QLD 4157342 1797 7.0/11 7.92 1633 1735
2. Weller, Tony QLD 4139355 1781 7.0/10 7.30 1606 1755
3. Fitzpatrick, Andrew VIC 1277015 1742 9.0/11 6.49 1676 1938
4. Wilkinson, Leo QLD 4140582 1733 7.5/10 7.60 1533 1726
5. Ali, Mosaddeque ACT 3273206 1726 6.5/10 7.10 1565 1675
6. Craven, Mark QLD 4132134 1718 7.0/11 7.15 1609 1711
7. Poulton, Chris ACT 1276820 1714 7.0/11 7.26 1595 1697
8. Hoving, Eliot NSW 2069093 1710 7.0/10 5.90 1645 1794
9. Lam, Anthony QLD 4160290 1683 7.0/11 7.48 1553 1655
10. Alkin, John QLD 4160253 1638 5.5/10 6.90 1494 1530
11. Chelebichanin, Nenad QLD 4177115 1605 6.0/11 7.81 1451 1487
12. Stokes, Mark QLD 4139300 1601 6.0/10 6.10 1523 1595
13. Messina, David ACT 1276901 1574 6.5/9 6.12 1438 1604
14. Mollard, Max VIC 3081255 1574 5.5/10 7.70 1367 1403
15. Davidson, Nathan QLD 4157386 1562 5.0/9 5.67 1467 1510
16. Cooke, Tristrom SA 5204555 1561 3.0/7 5.04 1392 1342
17. Dickson, Ian NSW 2015116 1546 6.5/11 5.50 1546 1611
18. Duggan, Howard QLD 4166741 1546 4.5/10 6.10 1464 1428
19. Stewart, Craig QLD 4156340 1530 5.0/10 4.30 1582 1582
20. Tanner, Greg QLD 4151425 1517 2.0/6 5.22 1201 1076
21. Bisson, Danny NSW 2051941 1507 5.0/9 5.58 1421 1464
22. Marks, Joe ACT 1271412 1494 4.5/9 5.76 1390 1390
23. Parker, Trent NSW 2068441 1490 5.0/10 4.80 1506 1506
24. Stokes, Richard NSW 2043665 1461 5.0/9 2.61 1617 1660
25. Matheson, Rhys QLD 3119793 1406 4.5/10 4.50 1445 1409
26. Goodwin, Bob QLD 4133733 1400 3.5/8 4.88 1317 1274
27. Marks, David QLD 4136161 1359 3.0/9 4.86 1333 1208
28. Nutt, Jeff QLD 4163473 1337 5.0/10 4.60 1363 1363
29. Booy, Peter QLD 4092315 1320 4.5/9 2.61 1479 1479
30. Hartley-Holl, Cliff QLD 4134190 1301 4.0/8 4.64 1244 1244
31. Waters, Mick QLD 4194343 1295 2.0/8 3.60 1331 1138
32. Bender, Peter QLD 4165094 1283 2.5/8 1.60 1519 1378
33. Kospartov, Nick QLD 4147254 1268 3.5/9 1.44 1555 1475
34. Christensen, Joshua NSW 2071953 1267 4.0/7 2.10 1418 1468
35. Wilkie, Mary NSW 2032922 1249 4.5/10 3.00 1395 1359
36. McGowan, Daniel NSW 2069384 1248 6.0/10 5.20 1232 1304
37. Lau, Tony NSW 2405340 1227 4.0/11 3.96 1333 1231
38. Humphrey, John QLD 4200153 1216 3.5/9 2.16 1414 1334
39. Sanderson, Christopher SA 5208212 1159 1.5/8 2.32 1321 1070
40. De Vere, Cameron QLD 4539936 1108 2.0/7 1.68 1314 1156
41. Hughes, Peter SA 5192776 1102 2.0/8 1.52 1353 1160
42. Soul, David NSW 2063644 1003 1.5/7 1.12 1291 1061
43. Thompson, Cameron QLD 4165260 972 0 0
44. Low, Brandon SA 5207232 969 2.5/8 0.96 1305 1164
45. Thompson, Ingrid QLD 4165702 960 0 0
46. Rogers, Jim QLD 4533010 764 1.5/7 1.05 1059 829
47. Borrill, Mark QLD 4533065 731 0.5/6 0.90 1028 627
48. Gilpin, Matthew QLD 4194310 5.5/11 1434 1434
49. Wan, Dennis NSW 6.0/10 1590 1615
50. Beeley, Robert QLD 4.5/11 1279 1214
51. Leskiewicz, Lech QLD 4151392 4.0/9 1339 1296
52. Hurse, Lachlan QLD 1.0/7 1120 811
53. Fitzpatrick, Lachlan QLD 4525435 2.0/8 1115 922
54. Moffatt, Blake QLD 4539041 3.0/10 1359 1210
55. Williams, Rudy WA 3.0/8 1127 1040

Trent Parker
14-01-2006, 03:36 PM
TY Bill....

Just goes to prove that my rating is about right atm :(

Frank Walker
14-01-2006, 04:03 PM
Just looking through performance ratings and must note that Dennis Wan has acheived a very good one.
Is he from oversea's or just doesent play competitivly?

Also we must thank Bill for releasing these stats so promtly!