PDA

View Full Version : 2006 Australian Reserves



firegoat7
26-09-2005, 06:47 PM
Hi,


Well it needed some promotion.

cheer fg7

Rincewind
26-09-2005, 07:07 PM
Hi,


Well it needed some promotion.

cheer fg7

Bot wanting to seem pedantic but do you mean the Australian Major?

I'm planning on playing at this stage. Anyone else?

BTW the confirmed entrants for all events is available here (http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm).

firegoat7
05-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Bot wanting to seem pedantic but do you mean the Australian Major?

I'm planning on playing at this stage. Anyone else?



All I wonder is, how was this allowed to happen? It seems the ACF have allowed the organisers to detroy the integrity of , what is argueably, one of Australian best chess tournaments.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, the Australian Reserves was historically open to anybody who did not qualify for the Australian championship. And yet it seems that it is now a major and minor tournament. Where is the authority for the organisers to wreck such vandalism on Australian chess heritage? Who is responsible for this? Surely the ACF tendered out the Australian Reserves tournament as part of championship conditions?

Furthermore, the organisers then decide that the minor will be u1800.....are these people clinically insane? What is the point of an u1800 cut off? Do they deliberately want the major to fail?

Lastly, $160..then $200 for late entry. Give me a break, who is in charge of this assylumn.

cheers Fg7 :hmm: :hmm:

Rincewind
05-10-2005, 03:34 PM
I think the major is open to anyone under 2150 and the minor anyone under 1800.

The difference with the monir is that it is a quicker 1 week event with two games per day, whereas the major follows the format of the championships. I also read somewhere that unsuccessful applicants to the championships will have the option to play in the major. I assume this wiull apply even if their rating is >= 2150.

So isn't the major simply a rename of the reserves and the minor an event for weakish players who don't want to spend the full 2 weeks in Brisbane? I imagine the naming convention was adopted to distinguish the rating cut-offs.

pax
05-10-2005, 04:20 PM
Well it needed some promotion.


You mean apart from the excellent website, the mailout to clubs and associations across Australia and the weekly mention in the ACF Newsletter. Oh, that's right - you don't read the ACF newsletter...

pax
05-10-2005, 04:26 PM
All I wonder is, how was this allowed to happen? It seems the ACF have allowed the organisers to detroy the integrity of , what is argueably, one of Australian best chess tournaments.


Huh?



Correct me if I am wrong, but, the Australian Reserves was historically open to anybody who did not qualify for the Australian championship.


And guess what: the Australian Major is open to everybody who does not qualify for the Australian Championship (except those nasty foreign GMs).



And yet it seems that it is now a major and minor tournament. Where is the authority for the organisers to wreck such vandalism on Australian chess heritage? Who is responsible for this? Surely the ACF tendered out the Australian Reserves tournament as part of championship conditions?


The minor is just that: a minor event. It has low entry fees, lower prizemoney, faster time controls, and is compressed into seven days. Essentially is is tailored to people who can't commit to two weeks. The way entries are going at the moment, it is highly unlikely to detract from the Major at all.

Denis_Jessop
05-10-2005, 05:57 PM
I think the major is open to anyone under 2150 and the minor anyone under 1800.

The difference with the monir is that it is a quicker 1 week event with two games per day, whereas the major follows the format of the championships. I also read somewhere that unsuccessful applicants to the championships will have the option to play in the major. I assume this wiull apply even if their rating is >= 2150.

So isn't the major simply a rename of the reserves and the minor an event for weakish players who don't want to spend the full 2 weeks in Brisbane? I imagine the naming convention was adopted to distinguish the rating cut-offs.

There's no limit on the number of entries in the Championship so any Australian player with an ACF rating of 2150 or above is able to enter the Championship and is not eligible for the Major.

The Major has been so designated since 1995. The By-laws for ACF Tournaments, para. 7, designate the event as the Australian Major.

Para. 9 of the same By-laws "strongly encourages" but does not "compel" a State or Territory Association, that is conducting the Australian Championships on behalf of the ACF, to hold a minor tournament in conjunction with the Championships. The by-law gives an under 1600 event as an example of an appropriate minor tournament. But this is only an example.

DJ

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 10:30 AM
I think the major is open to anyone under 2150 and the minor anyone under 1800.

My understanding is that the major or the tournament formerly known as the reserves, is open to anybody. This includes players over 2150, provided they want to play in the event. Lets say, for arguements sake somebody has an International rating of 2180 fide. I am fairly certain that they would be eligible for the reserves and would not be deemed strong enough to play in the championship. There is an historical precedent of Popov?? (Can somebody help us out here as I was not that familiar with the issues at the time), the year Wohl won the championship, all I remember was that his exclusion, from the reserves ,was controversial.


cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 10:51 AM
You mean apart from the excellent website, the mailout to clubs and associations across Australia and the weekly mention in the ACF Newsletter.

Your stupidity amazes me. Did I actually say that the promotion of the event was poor or badly oganised? No I didn't you ignorant twerp, I simply created a thread to discuss issues about this tournament on this website- Chesschat. It seemed to make perfect sense to talk about a tournament that was being run at the same time as other tournaments, especially when those other tournaments had their own threads.





Oh, that's right - you don't read the ACF newsletter...

Damn straight I don't. I simply skim the issues and think why bother. As an example, the acf newsletter publishes endless amounts of ERgas, Dandenong tournaments and Australian championship propoganda, not in itself a bad thing.

But let me make this point. I have seen virtually nothing on the current Victorian championship, despite A) The main arbiter and organiser being a vice president of the ACF and also, by coincidence, the current ChessVictoria president.

B) The current Victorian championship requires that all participants hand in their scoresheets so that DeBortolli wines, a fabricated joke it would seem with a N.S.W postal address can produce a pretty ordinary bunch of bulletins.

My understanding is that DeBortolli wines produces the bulletins in line with a little logo that is placed at the top of the bulletins. In fact my sources tell me that ChessVictoria actually pays a bookeeping amount of $500 for the service, even though it is unclear whether any cash actually exchanges hands. In other words it all appears to be for tax purposes.

It would seem then that Victorian players are out of pocket and that the ACF does not even bother to produce news from its own tournaments. Clearly if an ACF vice president cannot get the games in the national newsletter, then something is seriously wrong. Meanwhile you keep on harping on about ACF integrity Pax, while I will keep talking about inclusion/exclusion issues and dare I say it the northern state bias in National chess.

cheers Fg7

jenni
06-10-2005, 11:53 AM
The ACF bulletin is "edited" by the ACF. No-one expects them to write everything in it.

When I want something to appear for Ergas, I write an article, e-mail it to Paul and say - please include this in the next bulletin. There was nothing in todays bulletin about the camp, because I currently have been too lazy to do it. No doubt there will be something next week, because I will have written it.

I guess the point I am making is that someone in Victoria could approach Gary W and say can I write articles for the e-mail bulletin about the Vic Champs? Gary I am sure would be delighted to have this done and articles would appear.

pax
06-10-2005, 11:53 AM
Did I actually say that the promotion of the event was poor or badly oganised? No I didn't you ignorant twerp..

You said:

Well it needed some promotion.
which clearly implied that (in your view) it wasn't being promoted enough. If you don't understand that then you are dumber than I thought.



But let me make this point. I have seen virtually nothing on the current Victorian championship, despite A) The main arbiter and organiser being a vice president of the ACF and also, by coincidence, the current ChessVictoria president.


Has anyone associated with Victorian chess sent regular reports to the editor? If not, why not?



B) The current Victorian championship requires that all participants hand in their scoresheets so that DeBortolli wines, a fabricated joke it would seem with a N.S.W postal address can produce a pretty ordinary bunch of bulletins.

My understanding is that DeBortolli wines produces the bulletins in line with a little logo that is placed at the top of the bulletins. In fact my sources tell me that ChessVictoria actually pays a bookeeping amount of $500 for the service, even though it is unclear whether any cash actually exchanges hands. In other words it all appears to be for tax purposes.


WTF has this got to do with the price of cheese?



It would seem then that Victorian players are out of pocket and that the ACF does not even bother to produce news from its own tournaments.


Since when has the VICTORIAN championship been an ACF event?



Meanwhile you keep on harping on about ACF integrity Pax


What are you smoking Firegoat? You seem to be hallucinating.

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 02:14 PM
You said:

which clearly implied that (in your view) it wasn't being promoted enough. If you don't understand that then you are dumber than I thought.

Listen dumbo. Open up your thick head and reflect on the arguement. CONTEXT
It was you who linked the word "promotion" with "it wasn't being promoted enough". Its all in your mind, Paxman, not mine. The only person who "clearly implied" anything was yourself. Admit you mis-interpreted my statement and we can kiss and make up. :uhoh:


Has anyone associated with Victorian chess sent regular reports to the editor? If not, why not?

Learn to link and assess arguements correctly.

Bulletins have been produced for the Victorian championships. It has cost (theoretically) a considerable price to Victorian chessplayers. There are basically two people involved Chris Depasquale and Gary Wastell in the production. One works for a chess company called ChessWorld and the other is the current vice president of the ACF and president of ChessVictoria.


Ironically the same two people with regular chess columns in the Melbourne papers, the age and herald sun.I don't know why the ACF vice president cannot communicate with the ACF editor.But it seems to me that both of them seem more then capable of publishing the games in national newspapers, for a fee of course. :doh:

This is what I keep telling people like yourself that the ACF needs to start improving its communication channels. Because obviously its view of reality is pretty distorted if it thinks its getting the whole picture about the Australian chess scene. As I have said before, you would think that Australian chess did not exist. At the very least you would think we had nothing to promote....why?




WTF has this got to do with the price of cheese?
Link the arguement




Since when has the VICTORIAN championship been an ACF event?

Its a championship qualifying event. The ACF gets a fee for rating it. Don't pretend that the ACF has nothing to do with the event.



cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 02:20 PM
I guess the point I am making is that someone in Victoria could approach Gary W and say can I write articles for the e-mail bulletin about the Vic Champs? Gary I am sure would be delighted to have this done and articles would appear.

Hello is there anybody home. :wall: :wall: Why should the rank and file approach Gary when he is an elected official on both the ACF and ChessVictoria. Is he not perfectly situated to communicate himself? Is he one of your children that has to be reminded to pick up his socks :hmm:

Why don't you remind him to send them to the editor? It would make as much sense...not, as any of the other information sharing ideas coming out of the ACF/State hierarchy. :hand:

cheers FG7

pax
06-10-2005, 02:27 PM
Listen dumbo. Open up your thick head and reflect on the arguement. CONTEXT
It was you who linked the word "promotion" with "it wasn't being promoted enough".
need (nēd) pronunciation
n.

1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues … shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).

jenni
06-10-2005, 02:38 PM
Hello is there anybody home. :wall: :wall: Why should the rank and file approach Gary when he is an elected official on both the ACF and ChessVictoria. Is he not perfectly situated to communicate himself? Is he one of your children that has to be reminded to pick up his socks :hmm:

Why don't you remind him to send them to the editor? It would make as much sense...not, as any of the other information sharing ideas coming out of the ACF/State hierarchy. :hand:

cheers FG7

More of the "why don't the guvmint do it' crap that comes out of Victoria.

You want something done, stop whinging and get it done.

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 03:30 PM
More of the "why don't the guvmint do it' crap that comes out of Victoria.

You want something done, stop whinging and get it done.

Your as thick as two planks :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-10-2005, 03:33 PM
More of the "why don't the guvmint do it' crap that comes out of Victoria.

You want something done, stop whinging and get it done.

Excuse me dearie, but neither the ACF, nor ChessVictoria, nor the clubs or the players at chess clubs have any connection, whatsoever with the government. :owned: :hand: :hand: :owned: :owned: :hand:

cheers Fg7

jenni
06-10-2005, 04:03 PM
Excuse me dearie, but neither the ACF, nor ChessVictoria, nor the clubs or the players at chess clubs have any connection, whatsoever with the government. :owned: :hand: :hand: :owned: :owned: :hand:

cheers Fg7

God - aren't you supposed to be an intellectual. I thought even someone as thick as you could make the connection. :wall:

jenni
06-10-2005, 04:04 PM
Your as thick as two planks :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

Those who can do, those who can't criticise and whinge.

pax
06-10-2005, 04:09 PM
God - aren't you supposed to be an intellectual.

He is?? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

jenni
06-10-2005, 04:13 PM
He is?? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Well he rabbits on a lot and strings large numbers of big words together, so I am sure he thinks he is. :whistle:

antichrist
06-10-2005, 06:01 PM
FG has got the whole BB on fire - a one man army.

Libby
06-10-2005, 07:30 PM
Excuse me dearie,

All you need to know about someone is explained when they trot out this kind of quote.

I've spent several years working with Jenni in Canberra, more of a direct working relationship than probably anyone else in Australian chess.

Before you subscribe to the notion that we have some kind of "love-in" happening, we've disagreed on many occasions. Ahead of everything though, she's someone who gets things done. That will always have my respect.

She doesn't sit around bitching about what the ACF should be doing to hold the hand of every whinging or dysfunctional local club or association.

This crap about the Bulletin again is beyond belief.

Regards

(another) Dearie

Libby
06-10-2005, 07:34 PM
Your as thick as two planks :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

oops - where's that apostrophe when you need it :)

jenni
07-10-2005, 08:59 AM
Before you subscribe to the notion that we have some kind of "love-in" happening, we've disagreed on many occasions.

Er yes! Put two strong minded females together who both like their own way and the fur was certain to fly. :lol: However we fairly soon built up a good relationship based on respect and a desire to co-operate and compromise. I think our respective husbands have put up with a lot of whinging, but to the ACT chess community, we have probably presented a united front.

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 12:33 PM
All you need to know about someone is explained when they trot out this kind of quote.


Psychoanalyisis hour is it. Well lets put the comment in its appropriate context.

Yes I agree that the language is sexist,condescending and inappropriate.

Congratulations on your point, I agree totally!

In a normal society circumstance I would never use such language. However here at Cheesechat, a private fiefdom, as we are repeatedly told by limp wristed hypocritical moderators, none of the normal societal rules of society apply. Here it seems everything works morally as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a teeth". No doubt you might be able to infer something from these social facts about chess administrators in general.

Nevertheless, I reserve the right to talk about Jenni in such a way, according to the current rules on chesschat. She is a sexist and has proved that in previous debates with myself. She also has the ability to be condescending and inappropriate with her usage of language. If I actually cared what she thought I would not take the mickey out of her so much. :hand:

Furthermore, I accept the reality that I do not have to get along with every known person on the planet. Especially middle class yuppies.




I've spent several years working with Jenni in Canberra, more of a direct working relationship than probably anyone else in Australian chess.

Maybe you should write her a job reference because I won't be. :hand:



She doesn't sit around bitching about what the ACF should be doing to hold the hand of every whinging or dysfunctional local club or association.
Your chess scene in Canberra may be disfunctional, but here in Victoria the chess scene is quite good.




This crap about the Bulletin again is beyond belief.

Its only crap because people like you seem to believe that ideas are not worth talking about, and that the status quo is perfectly fine.


cheers Fg7

Libby
08-10-2005, 04:02 PM
Its only crap because people like you seem to believe that ideas are not worth talking about, and that the status quo is perfectly fine.
cheers Fg7

Obviously. I mean, barely a new program or initiative has come online in Canberra since I became involved. I am completely devoid of ideas, resistant to change, full of crap, female and (possibly on pay-week only) middle-class.

I think that sums it up. :hand:

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 04:09 PM
Obviously. I mean, barely a new program or initiative has come online in Canberra since I became involved. I am completely devoid of ideas, resistant to change, full of crap, female and (possibly on pay-week only) middle-class.

:rolleyes: You took this personally? :doh:

cheers Fg7

jenni
08-10-2005, 04:17 PM
. She is a sexist

This was an adjective I thought? However anyone who uses your for you're probably doesn't know the difference.


.

Maybe you should write her a job reference because I won't be. :hand:

Isn't it fortunate I haven't needed one for at least a 1/4 of a century? :lol:


.
Your chess scene in Canberra may be disfunctional, but here in Victoria the chess scene is quite good.

There's his sense of humour again. Similar to his recent statement that ACT was over rated and Vic under rated - and as correct. Anyone like to count up how many rating points Vic gave to ACT in the Ergas tournament?

Libby
08-10-2005, 04:21 PM
:rolleyes: You took this personally? :doh:

cheers Fg7

Wasn't it all about people like me?

Sorry, I have so much trouble with the difference between what people actually say and do and what they meant by what was said & done. Ask Garvin. :wall:

Now I'm going to get barefoot & back in the kitchen if that's OK.

jenni
08-10-2005, 04:24 PM
Now I'm going to get barefoot & back in the kitchen if that's OK.

:lol: :owned: :clap:

ursogr8
08-10-2005, 04:31 PM
<snip>
Anyone like to count up how many rating points Vic gave to ACT in the Ergas tournament?

jenni

Oi. Keep this quiet...pleeaase.
Everyone will want our rating points and invade our tourneys if this gets out. ;)

And the Flavoured Dude has only just so much to give.

starter

Garvinator
08-10-2005, 04:44 PM
Ask Garvin. :wall:
please dont ;) at the moment i am struggling with the concept of what most of this rot has to do with the 2006 Australian Juniors anymore. I think it would do everyone a whole lot of favours if a moderator other than Jenni took the eraser to most of this thread. :uhoh:

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 04:48 PM
This was an adjective I thought?


Picky, petty and inaccurate.

I will not comment on your sentence structure. :eek:

Sexist 1.adj Believing one sex is inferior believing that one sex is inferior to another in a variety of attributes. 2. adj Resulting from sexist belief resulting from or relating to the belief that one sex is inferior to the other in a variety of attributes. 3. noun Somebody who is sexist somebody who believes that one sex is weaker or inferior to another.

Refuted :hand:




However anyone who uses your for you're probably doesn't know the difference. Show me the context and I will admit the error.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 04:53 PM
Wasn't it all about people like me?


One point in a thread does not maketh the summer. It is just not cricket to blame the bowler when you drop the catches.




Now I'm going to get barefoot & back in the kitchen if that's OK.

I will let that one pass throught to the keeper, but if you keep pitching them outside the offstump then be prepared to expect a couple of sixes over the boundary:owned:

cheers Fg7

Libby
08-10-2005, 04:54 PM
Show me the context and I will admit the error.

Cheers Fg7

Very tricky to find the example in this thread


Your as thick as two planks :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

I might have just picked you up on it earlier if you looked :rolleyes:

I particularly liked the context in this case. It was actually what had caught my eye. Nothing worse than slighting the intellectual capacities of others with your (you're, youse) own special example :whistle:

jenni
08-10-2005, 05:02 PM
jenni

Oi. Keep this quiet...pleeaase.
Everyone will want our rating points and invade our tourneys if this gets out. ;)


Yes Libby and I are considering organising bus tours down to Melbourne - maybe call it "the Ratings Special Tour". :eek: (Could add in some wineries on the way back?)

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 05:02 PM
Very tricky to find the example in this thread


I particularly liked the context in this case. It was actually what had caught my eye. Nothing worse that slighting the intellectual capacities of others with your (you're, youse) own special example :whistle:

Touche!! :clap: :clap:

The re-write looks like this ....

Jenni and I are as thick as two planks! :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

P.S hmmmmm the Queens English....interesting :hmm:

jenni
08-10-2005, 05:03 PM
I think it would do everyone a whole lot of favours if a moderator other than Jenni took the eraser to most of this thread. :uhoh:

Well seeing I am not allowed to do it, I will just continue to indulge in thread drift... :confused:

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Nothing worse that slighting the intellectual capacities of others with your (you're, youse) own special example :whistle:

:hand: Please don't think I'm relating your spelling to intelligence, but shouldn't it be then instead of that. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
08-10-2005, 05:09 PM
So the 3rd re-write is......


Jenni, Libby and myself are as thick as two planks, or is that three planks. :wall: :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

jenni
08-10-2005, 05:10 PM
:hand: Please don't think I'm relating your spelling to intelligence, but shouldn't it be then instead of that. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

or even than

Libby
08-10-2005, 05:11 PM
Now you'll just have to show me where I said that and I'll admit my error ;)

Dozy
08-10-2005, 05:16 PM
So the 3rd re-write is......


Jenni, Libby and myself are as thick as two planks, or is that three planks. :wall: :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7The Japanese equivalent is mijikai ita ni mai ... but don't ask, it's a long story

jenni
08-10-2005, 05:30 PM
So the 3rd re-write is......


Jenni, Libby and myself are as thick as two planks, or is that three planks. :wall: :wall: :wall:

cheers Fg7

OK I got it wrong when I didn't know you could have a sexist (still sets my nerves on edge).

However I can't let this one go.

"Here are the rules:
· Use I when the pronoun is in the subject of the sentence (is nominative), no matter where within the sentence the subject occurs.
· Use me when the pronoun is in the predicate of the sentence (is not nominative), no matter where in the sentence the predicate occurs.
· Use myself when the pronoun is reflexive and there is a “companion” nominative pronoun elsewhere in the sentence.

I bought a book.
George bought a book for me.
George bought me a book.
I bought myself a book."

So no "Jenni, Libby and myself" please. (on a number of accounts - the juxtapositioning is enough to cause me to faint and call for smelling salts.)

Spiny Norman
08-10-2005, 05:46 PM
Fair go people ... we're running out of planks ... :sleeping:

Libby
08-10-2005, 05:55 PM
P.S hmmmmm the Queens English....interesting :hmm:

Or even the Queen's English :lol:

Spiny Norman
08-10-2005, 06:01 PM
P.S hmmmmm the Queens English....interesting :hmm:
or even: P.S.

...

which, as best I can tell, is from the Latin "postscriptum". so perhaps it doesn't even belong in the Queen's English?

Rincewind
27-12-2005, 01:48 PM
No draw for the majors as yet?...

jase
27-12-2005, 04:32 PM
I believe that players are still able to enter the major today; no draw will be conducted until entries for the 1st round have closed (ie entries on the day are still being accepted but these players will receive a half point bye in round 1).

Rincewind
28-12-2005, 02:06 PM
A draw for the major was posted in the analysis room at around 11am this morning. However, still nothing on the website now (2pm).

Kevin Bonham
29-12-2005, 12:39 AM
And speaking of draws:

7 1975 2044 Marner, Gavin (0) ˝ - ˝ Cox, Barry (0) 0 1701

Good start.

Excluding the unrated players, 4 upsets and 4 draws from 29 games in the Major.

Tomorrow Ian Rout has a shot at Sheldrick on board 1.

Garvinator
29-12-2005, 12:55 AM
Tomorrow Ian Rout has a shot at Sheldrick on board 1.
and Mr Rout is on a dgt board too ;) :owned:

Rincewind
29-12-2005, 07:55 AM
Good start.

Thanks. The game finished around 7 then 30 minutes or so post mortem - a tough day at the office but satisfying.

Trent Parker
29-12-2005, 08:10 AM
so where are you staying at Barry? Cheap internet connection?

Duff McKagan
31-12-2005, 07:53 PM
Any results for round 4?

pax
31-12-2005, 08:23 PM
Check the PGN file at the bottom of the Rd 4 pairings. Since these files are updated as games are entered, you will often see a lot of results there before the whole round of results is updated in the pairing page itself.

Alan Shore
02-01-2006, 09:56 PM
Hey, something odd...

Dizdarevic - Davidovici in Round 5...

The pairing has Davidovici as black.

The game in PGN, has black winning the game, 0-1.

Yet in the results on the site and pairings for tomorrow, it has Dizdarevic as having won the game.

So.... something is screwed?

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2006, 10:01 PM
Hey, something odd...

Dizdarevic - Davidovici in Round 5...

The pairing has Davidovici as black.

The game in PGN, has black winning the game, 0-1.And the position is certainly winning for black.


Yet in the results on the site and pairings for tomorrow, it has Dizdarevic as having won the game.

So.... something is screwed?So it would appear.

Alan Shore
02-01-2006, 10:04 PM
And the position is certainly winning for black.

So it would appear.

Yeah, well.. if they don't catch it, it messes up the pairings, so hopefully someone will read this and investigate.

Also I'm pretty certain Victor was black as I've seen him play that system before.. him and his son.

rob
03-01-2006, 12:21 AM
In round 5, the 4 WA players had to play each other (pretty unlikely) - in both cases the lower rated player was victorious.

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2006, 09:36 AM
Yeah, well.. if they don't catch it, it messes up the pairings, so hopefully someone will read this and investigate.

Also I'm pretty certain Victor was black as I've seen him play that system before.. him and his son.Well I see they have changed the result in the game score to indicate that White won and not Black.

Given the position is clearly winning for Black one can only assume that Balck lost on time.

pax
03-01-2006, 11:17 AM
Well I see they have changed the result in the game score to indicate that White won and not Black.

Given the position is clearly winning for Black one can only assume that Balck lost on time.

Apparently both scoresheets are marked 1-0 and signed. It is assumed that it must have been on time, but I don't know that for certain.

Although you have to wonder how someone can lose on time in such a 'simple' position, with lots of easy moves to make to gain time.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2006, 06:51 PM
Wright-Sheldrick: the sad sad sight of a Benko Gambit that totally failed to deliver and our leader is finally toppled. Neil Wright has won the reserves before - watch out for him in the remaining rounds.

Duff McKagan
05-01-2006, 09:10 PM
Go Neil!!!

pballard
05-01-2006, 09:57 PM
Wright-Sheldrick: the sad sad sight of a Benko Gambit that totally failed to deliver and our leader is finally toppled. Neil Wright has won the reserves before - watch out for him in the remaining rounds.

5...axb5 and then 6...e6 seems to mix two different Benko strategies. Is it book? It just looks bad.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2006, 10:15 PM
5...axb5 and then 6...e6 seems to mix two different Benko strategies. Is it book? It just looks bad.

Don't normally play the Benko so not sure but NCO gives only 6...Qa5+.

Was wondering where Wright has been this tournament, turns out he lost to Lee Jones (who today had the worse end of a draw with Rincewind! Well done Barry!)

Rincewind
05-01-2006, 11:43 PM
Was wondering where Wright has been this tournament, turns out he lost to Lee Jones (who today had the worse end of a draw with Rincewind! Well done Barry!)

Thanks Kevin. I've had a reasonable run so far for a player of my rating with draws to Marner, Viner and now Lee Jones. I was in time trouble (if such a thing exists in 1 minute increment games) for most of it or else I might have been able to make more of the ending but was very happy with the final result. Also got to meet Lee for the first time, who is a really nice guy.

As a someone who appreciates swindles you should look at the game Cox-Al Zaher, round 6. I stuffed up the opening and lost a pawn, my opponent liquidated to a won rook and pawn ending and then misplayed it giving me the point. Interesting thing about this game was black's steadfast refusal to resign even when down K+Q v lone K - until it was mate in one. As we were the very last board to finish that night (~6 hour game, 92 moves) and the arbiters were waiting to do the following round's draw, etc, they were less than appreciative of my opponent's lack of faith in my ability to play that particular endgame.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2006, 12:29 AM
Good game against Lee, Barry.
It is too bad you missed 55. e4 which is winning easily for you.

Rincewind
06-01-2006, 12:32 AM
Good game against Lee, Barry.
It is too bad you missed 55. e4 which is winning easily for you.

Thanks, really there were so many misses, such is the nature of chess - particularly as is practiced by me. As I said, I was happy with the overall result. (BTW Lee also pointed out 55.e4 in the post game analysis.)

Oepty
06-01-2006, 10:15 AM
5...axb5 and then 6...e6 seems to mix two different Benko strategies. Is it book? It just looks bad.

It is just bad. I looked at the game with Neil last night and Kevin just made a totall hash of it. I am not surprised that Kevin lost although I was surprised he played the Benko that badly. He has played it alot.
I think Matthew Sonter is going to finish this tournament very strongly. He is doing what he did 2 years ago in Adelaide, slow start and then come home strongly. I think he might beat Sheldrick tommorrow.
Scott

Davidflude
06-01-2006, 11:33 AM
If your opponent plays on and on in a dead lost position then:

Slow down and take extra care. If you have heaps of time let him sit there for half an hour while it is your move. You must strive for extra calm. Do not try and win cleverly. Win as brutally as possible.

Duff McKagan
07-01-2006, 05:33 PM
Neil is doing the job here against Cashman.

Duff McKagan
10-01-2006, 12:55 AM
Congrats to Neil Wright in a nail-biting finish!

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2006, 10:17 PM
Haven't had time to look at the games yet but what a dramatic finish, with Wright losing in the final round but still winning the tournament outright because the two players trailing him were also knocked over, incredible!

Neil also won in 2001-2 - winning this event twice out of three consecutive holdings is a very impressive feat for any player.

Rincewind
11-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Yes, well done Neil Wright, especially after Kevin Sheldrick's hot start.

Garvinator
11-01-2006, 10:49 PM
Neil also won in 2001-2 - winning this event twice out of three consecutive holdings is a very impressive feat for any player.
I believe that the winner of the major gets automatic entry to the championships, so i take it that Neil just decided not to play in the championship in Adelaide, which explains his absense.

pax
11-01-2006, 11:21 PM
I believe that the winner of the major gets automatic entry to the championships, so i take it that Neil just decided not to play in the championship in Adelaide, which explains his absense.

Is he allowed to play the Major (assuming his rating is below 2150)?

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2006, 11:26 PM
I believe that the winner of the major gets automatic entry to the championships, so i take it that Neil just decided not to play in the championship in Adelaide, which explains his absense.Neil played in the 2003-2004 Australian Championship in Adelaide.

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2006, 11:27 PM
Is he allowed to play the Major (assuming his rating is below 2150)?Yes.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2006, 05:37 PM
Using ACF ratings here are the rating performances as calculated by Swiss Perfect.
Note where the player had no ACF rating their FIDE rating was used.

No Name Feder Loc Id Loc Score Exp. Rav Rprfm

1. Sheldrick, Kevin SA 5201261 2118 7.5/11 8.14 1932 2065
2. Norris, Damian QLD 4137082 2084 7.0/10 8.30 1816 1965
3. Tredinnick, Malcolm NSW 2090484 2073 8.0/11 8.69 1840 2015
4. Jones, Lee NSW 2044155 2054 5.5/10 7.20 1890 1926
5. Duxbury, Craig QLD 4141153 2045 3.5/5 3.55 1883 2032
6. Milligan, Helen SCO 2045 6.0/11 8.36 1842 1878
7. Marner, Gavin NZL 2044 6.5/11 7.81 1884 1949
8. Hu, Jason NSW 2069944 2024 6.0/11 8.91 1778 1814
9. Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija VIC 3101894 2014 6.5/11 7.15 1904 1969
10. Sonter, Matthew QLD 4157611 2013 6.5/11 8.58 1793 1858
11. Zvedeniouk, Ilia NSW 2204212 2001 8.0/11 6.82 1913 2088
12. Viner, Phillip J NSW 2032244 1971 5.5/10 7.70 1764 1800
13. Wright, Neil NSW 2049145 1945 8.5/11 6.16 1901 2112
14. Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 2073240 1930 6.5/11 7.48 1794 1859
15. Krstic, Slobodan VIC 3090742 1928 7.0/11 6.49 1863 1965
16. Fry, Peter VIC 3074911 1908 5.5/10 6.80 1773 1809
17. Stojic, Svetozar VIC 1281340 1879 7.5/11 5.83 1859 1992
18. Truscott, Tony J QLD 4139764 1879 7.5/11 4.95 1915 2048
19. Davidovici, Victor QLD 4132322 1861 4.0/10 6.70 1737 1665
20. Lilly, Richard WA 6232956 1851 4.0/11 8.25 1656 1554
21. Vijayakumar, Rukman VIC 3108821 1851 5.0/9 3.24 1950 1993
22. Rout, Ian ACT 1272020 1846 4.0/10 7.30 1674 1602
23. Cashman, Michael QLD 4131644 1842 7.0/11 4.84 1888 1990
24. Myers, John QLD 4138894 1833 5.5/11 6.49 1766 1766
25. Tulevski, Vasil NSW 2031555 1828 4.5/10 5.50 1795 1759
26. Davis, Tony VIC 3073264 1816 5.5/11 5.94 1790 1790
27. Lukursky, Boris NSW 2022525 1784 4.5/11 8.25 1593 1528
28. Lazarus, Benjamin QLD 4163344 1771 8.0/11 4.29 1850 2025
29. Selnes, Hamish QLD 4138740 1752 4.5/11 5.94 1722 1657
30. Al Zaher, Louay QLD 4198333 1737 4.0/9 5.22 1680 1637
31. Barisic, Frank NSW 2011056 1731 3.0/9 6.12 1599 1474
32. Lovejoy, David QLD 4161841 1730 6.5/11 3.96 1836 1901
33. McKenzie, Colin VIC 3080485 1716 4.0/10 5.30 1694 1622
34. Holland, Dennis WA 6249270 1715 5.0/10 5.20 1704 1704
35. Hackenschmidt-Uecker, Jorg QLD 4536462 1708 5.5/11 5.72 1691 1691
36. Guo-Yuthok, Sherab ACT 1279703 1706 5.0/10 5.30 1684 1684
37. Cox, Barry NSW 2067251 1701 6.0/11 3.19 1862 1898
38. Hvistendahl, Robert NSW 4186215 1701 5.0/9 2.25 1898 1941
39. Oliver, Shannon ACT 1276956 1685 6.0/11 4.73 1733 1769
40. Korenevski, Oleg QLD 4163543 1674 5.5/11 4.18 1759 1759
41. Myers, Stephen NSW 3081605 1661 4.5/10 5.30 1639 1603
42. Canfell, Mike NSW 2013252 1648 5.0/10 3.80 1736 1736
43. Brockman, Roland VIC 3071676 1627 4.0/10 2.60 1813 1741
44. Schon, Eugene VIC 3115450 1611 5.0/11 3.19 1767 1731
45. Behne-Smith, David NSW 2067833 1585 5.5/11 2.75 1776 1776
46. Humphries, Ryan WA 6246470 1555 3.0/10 5.50 1519 1370
47. Barker, Ken QLD 4130546 1526 5.0/11 6.38 1466 1430
48. Chuang, Howard QLD 4200945 1514 5.5/11 3.19 1675 1675
49. Tang, Jason VIC 3116953 1465 4.5/11 6.60 1390 1325
50. Tangimentua, Tyson QLD 4182940 1360 5.5/10 4.40 1400 1436
51. Horton, Russell TAS 7295405 1357 4.0/11 3.30 1503 1401
52. Russell, Luthien QLD 4206372 1334 4.5/9 2.88 1469 1469
53. Slack-Smith, Blair WA 6249163 1290 4.5/11 1.87 1566 1501
54. Hunter, Shayne QLD 4530265 1235 3.0/10 2.20 1456 1307
55. Guo, Emma ACT 2070736 1197 3.5/10 2.90 1351 1241
56. Bhattacharya, Devraj VIC 3121444 1112 3.0/10 1.70 1387 1238
57. Bielenberg, Nathanael QLD 4531772 1112 4.0/11 1.43 1432 1330
58. Long Hong, Stan QLD 4135833 1094 1.0/10 2.30 1308 942
59. Sheng, Susan VIC 3120283 1085 0.5/9 1.80 1326 882
60. Behne-Smith, Jonathan NSW 1291583 974 4.5/10 1.40 1279 1243
61. Feria, Antolin QLD 4.5/11 1704 1639
62. Soo, Brayden QLD 4191930 6.0/11 1748 1761

Kevin Bonham
14-01-2006, 01:53 AM
The top ten seeds all performed below their ratings, some badly so. Not surprised in some cases as FIDE-ACF parity doesn't exist at that low level and some of the Australian players' ratings have been on the skids for ages, but surprised to see Jason Hu have such a shocker.

Excellent result for Rincewind - he got +1=6-2 against nine higher rated players, some of them over 300 points higher. (I'm especially respectful of this effort having just lost to Jones when I played him and been pretty badly walloped by Hu at Mt Buller.)

Rincewind
14-01-2006, 06:40 AM
The top ten seeds all performed below their ratings, some badly so. Not surprised in some cases as FIDE-ACF parity doesn't exist at that low level and some of the Australian players' ratings have been on the skids for ages, but surprised to see Jason Hu have such a shocker.

Jason was sick.


Excellent result for Rincewind - he got +1=6-2 against nine higher rated players, some of them over 300 points higher. (I'm especially respectful of this effort having just lost to Jones when I played him and been pretty badly walloped by Hu at Mt Buller.)

Actually got +2=6-2 vs 10 higher rated opponents :D However that should be tempered with the fact that 6 month ago my rating was 150 points higher than it is today. That has me scoring only 50 points over expectation. Still I was very happy with how I went.

I think I caught Lee by surprise a bit and used a lot of time in the opening/middle which paid off, winning a pawn, but ultimately inhibited me from finishing off that game, and as I mentioned Jason was not well. I was also very lucky, scamming a win from Al Zaher and draw from Davis, both from lost positions.

firegoat7
14-01-2006, 03:56 PM
Hello,

What I find interesting is that more rating points are lost then gained out of the overall Australian rating pool, for this specific tournament, by this specific field. Is that normal? Is it anything to be worried about? Does it mean the Australian rating system is deflationary or is this a specific blimp? Do the unrated players count? What are the mathematical explanations in laymen terms?

Just curious.

I am not sure that it matters if it should be a zero total outcome, but you would think it would matter long term.

cheers Fg7

Rincewind
14-01-2006, 04:30 PM
What I find interesting is that more rating points are lost then gained out of the overall Australian rating pool, for this specific tournament, by this specific field.

Bill should confirm but my understanding is that the figures posted above are straight out of Swiss Perfect and the performance and rating change calculations are done according to FIDE's Elo system. Therefore they have no relevance to the Australian rating pool other than as a very rough guideline.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2006, 04:37 PM
Hello,

What I find interesting is that more rating points are lost then gained out of the overall Australian rating pool, for this specific tournament, by this specific field. Is that normal? Is it anything to be worried about? Does it mean the Australian rating system is deflationary or is this a specific blimp? Do the unrated players count? What are the mathematical explanations in laymen terms?Those estimated rating point changes have nothing to do with the ACF rating system. They are estimates by Swiss Perfect based on the Elo system with a K factor of 10. Swiss Perfect is using a 350 point rating cutoff to determine the average rating of a players opponents which in and of itself is imprecise. I suspect this is the cause.
They really should be disregarded. I really posted them to show the estimated performance ratings.


I am not sure that it matters if it should be a zero total outcome, but you would think it would matter long term.In correctly calculated Elo where the average rating of opponents is not used and provided every player has the same K factor it is always zero sum. FIDE rated events with players rated above and below 2400 are not zero sum and in fact there is no requirement for rating calculations to be zero sum. Glicko and Glicko2 are not zero sum.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2006, 04:41 PM
Seeing as it is totally misleading I'll remove the estimated rating change from the display.

Rincewind
14-01-2006, 04:57 PM
In correctly calculated Elo where the average rating of opponents is not used and provided every player has the same K factor it is always zero sum. FIDE rated events with players rated above and below 2400 are not zero sum and in fact there is no requirement for rating calculations to be zero sum. Glicko and Glicko2 are not zero sum.

Does it use the average rating to calculate the expected?

I looked at the totals and the number of games between rated players was 311 but the total expected column was 316.71. Therefore, the calculation was expecting the pool to do 5.71 games more than is possible. This would lead to a rating deflation of the order of 57.1. The fact is was 59 was due to subsequent rounding error.

The inflation in the expected score was (I thought) due to rounding the in the game by game calculation of the expected. However, if it is due to an average rating being used and multiplied by number of games played then that would also make sense as a number of players would have played one of the bottom 12 or so players which would drag their average down compared to the majority of the field they would have played. E.G. discounting my round 3 win actually increases my performance rating (over 10 games) as that opponent was nearly 400 points lower than any of my other opponents.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2006, 05:40 PM
Does it use the average rating to calculate the expected?

I looked at the totals and the number of games between rated players was 311 but the total expected column was 316.71. Therefore, the calculation was expecting the pool to do 5.71 games more than is possible. This would lead to a rating deflation of the order of 57.1. The fact is was 59 was due to subsequent rounding error.

The inflation in the expected score was (I thought) due to rounding the in the game by game calculation of the expected. However, if it is due to an average rating being used and multiplied by number of games played then that would also make sense as a number of players would have played one of the bottom 12 or so players which would drag their average down compared to the majority of the field they would have played. E.G. discounting my round 3 win actually increases my performance rating (over 10 games) as that opponent was nearly 400 points lower than any of my other opponents.When Swiss Perfect was written the FIDE code for rating gain was new rating = old rating + K(actual - expected) and the expected score was calculated by first determining the players rating - average rating of opponents, looking up this differnce in the FIDE rating table and converting it to a percentage score then multiplying this by the number of games played.

I just now picked Peter Fry by random.

16. Fry, Peter VIC 3074911 1908 5.5/10 7.10 1753 1789

His rating is 1908 and the average rating of his opponents is 1753 for 10 games. That is a 155 difference.
That equates to a percentage of 71%. He played 10 games so that gives an expected score of 7.1.

Although Swiss Perfect defaults to a 350 point correction for the FIDE rating calculations it does not for the loacl rating calculations. I had changed this for the other lists I posted but missed it on this one.

Therefore the average rating of Fry's opponents is only 1753 if no 350 correction is applied. He actually played a player rated 1360 and another rated 1555. These are both adjusted to 1558 once the 350 correction is applied and his average rating is thus 1773.

As such the rating difference is 1908-1773 which equals 135 and equates to 68%. Hence his expected score is now 6.8.

16. Fry, Peter VIC 3074911 1908 5.5/10 6.80 1773 1809

However on a game by game basis with the 350 cutoff in place his expected score is 6.63 whereas his true expected score which is based on game by game with no cutoff in effect is 6.71.

What this clearly demonstrates is how misleading calculations based on using an average can be whether they involve cut-offs or not.

Note also that the 350 cutoff also affects his performance rating.

His true performance rating is 1797.

Note I have now corrected the above list.

Rincewind
14-01-2006, 06:49 PM
What this clearly demonstrates is how misleading calculations based on using an average can be whether they involve cut-offs or not.

I agree. Means are meaningless.