PDA

View Full Version : The culture of selection



Pages : 1 [2]

Brian_Jones
19-12-2005, 05:15 PM
I think you will find Bill that, if the reserves is to be FIDE rated, it has to conform with FIDE regulations. FIDE ratings must be used for pairings under certain circumstances. As an experienced IA you should be able to tell us what those circumstances are - or you can just leave it to the arbiters who are paid to do the job in Brisbane.

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2005, 05:30 PM
Lakner and Guthrie also remain in the Championship.
Scott

Lakner has been appointed as WA rep by CAWA and as such we were not required to rule on him.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2005, 05:50 PM
I made no comment in my previous post as to the validity of it just a simple statement of what was on the entry form.


I think you will find Bill that, if the reserves is to be FIDE rated, it has to conform with FIDE regulations. FIDE ratings must be used for pairings under certain circumstances.I'm well aware of the wording of the regulations.

As an experienced IA you should be able to tell us what those circumstances are - or you can just leave it to the arbiters who are paid to do the job in Brisbane.Firstly I'm not an IA and have never claimed to be one.

As for the FIDE regulations the FIDE Rating Regulation only states that the FIDE Laws of Chess must apply (Section EE1). No mention of ratings exists in the FIDE Laws of Chess.
I think you will find that no mention is made under section B.02 covering the FIDE Rating regulations that FIDE ratings must be used for Swiss Pairings.

For events to be valid for the awarding of FIDE Titles/Norms (Section B0101) not only must the FIDE Laws of Chess be followed but so to must the FIDE Tournament Rules. Even so neither section B0101 nor the the FIDE Tournament Rules (section C06) make any mention of FIDE ratings having to be used.

As such I cannot find anywhere in the FIDE Regulations for Titles/Norms or the FIDE Rating Regulations that require Swiss events to be run with players in FIDE rating order.

However I prepared to be convinced otherwise if someone can point me to where it is explicitly stated that for a swiss event to be FIDE Rated or valid for a FIDE Title/Norm that the event must have the players in FIDE rating order.

Rhubarb
19-12-2005, 06:06 PM
I think you will find that no mention is made under section B.02 covering the FIDE Rating regulations that FIDE ratings must be used for Swiss Pairings.

For events to be valid for the awarding of FIDE Titles/Norms (Section B0101) not only must the FIDE Laws of Chess be followed but so to must the FIDE Tournament Rules. Even so neither section B0101 nor the the FIDE Tournament Rules (section C06) make any mention of FIDE ratings having to be used.

As such I cannot find anywhere in the FIDE Regulations for Titles/Norms or the FIDE Rating Regulations that require Swiss events to be run with players in FIDE rating order.

However I prepared to be convinced otherwise if someone can point me to where it is explicitly stated that for a swiss event to be FIDE Rated or valid for a FIDE Title/Norm that the event must have the players in FIDE rating order.Yes, this is correct, Bill. For Swiss events that are FIDE-rated, it is generally at the organisers' discretion whether they use local or FIDE ratings for seeding. In the reports to FIDE, it is explicitly stated if local ratings have been used.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2005, 06:07 PM
Yes, this is correct, Bill. For Swiss events that are FIDE-rated, it is generally at the organisers' discretion whether they use local or FIDE ratings for seeding. In the reports to FIDE, it is explicitly stated if local ratings have been used.Thanks Greg.

DoroPhil
19-12-2005, 06:46 PM
Now that an improving adult (Pyke) is being allowed to play the Aus Champs...

Go Malcolm!

Oepty
19-12-2005, 08:10 PM
Have a little respect. Their FIDE rating is above 2200 (Guthrie 2251, to be precise). Does it account for anything?

Aaron Guthrie's ACF Ratings is 2120, and Jay Lakner's ACF Rating is 2145. These are both below the required 2150 so needed to go to the selection committee. I never expected either player to miss out and it probably was just a formality but I added their names for completeness sake rather than anything else.
As far as the FIDE rating goes, it does not count towards any automatic selection. It is certainly possible to have a player with a FIDE rating above 2150 to miss out in playing in the championships. It happened to both Lee Jones and Matthew Sonter this time.

Scott

Oepty
19-12-2005, 08:14 PM
I think Freddy's observation was motivated by state pride, not disrespect.

Not even that Barry, Jay Lakner is not a South Australian and has never been as far as I know.
Scott

Oepty
19-12-2005, 08:16 PM
Lakner has been appointed as WA rep by CAWA and as such we were not required to rule on him.

Okay, fair enough, it makes my previous post on the issue incorrect, but it does show the thinking I was using so I will leave it as it is.
Scott

Rincewind
19-12-2005, 08:33 PM
Not even that Barry, Jay Lakner is not a South Australian and has never been as far as I know.
Scott

Sorry, Jay is not known to me. Aaron is and it was upon that which my assumption was based. Perhaps because it was his name that Igor picked up on.

Garvinator
19-12-2005, 08:44 PM
Hello Jenni,

Final field has been announced, so now down to the real business:

Post 46 of this thread

Are you and Garvin prepared to put money on the line? Cos I am willing to bet that none of the juniors will finish at the bottom. If I am right then maybe it is the borderline 2150 adults, who are diluting the strength.

Unfortunately, looking at the final field, I believe that Nigel Frame will finish last. Therefore I cannot make a bet. Would love to though.

Furthermore, we would have to be betting on junior v adult on those who got in on equal proficency/junior rule.

This would leave:

Guthrie, Aaron FM SA 2251 2120
Pyke, Malcolm VIC 2126 2079
Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055
Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093
Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073

If I have missed anyone, my apologies.

rob
19-12-2005, 10:32 PM
Sorry, Jay is not known to me.
Shame on you! I know Jay and Tristan very well - I just wish I was as good (at chess) as them. For your info here is the WA top 20 (the 2nd column is the Sept rank):

1 1 2264 !! 13 Boyd, Tristan
2 3 2145 ! 0 Lakner, Jay
3 4 2135 ! 0 Byrne, Stewart J
3 2 2135 !! 13 Barber, Haydn J [FM]
5 6 2111 0 McCamon, Boyd
6 7 2100 ! 0 Horstmann, Michael
7 8 2067 !! 13 Hare, Tim
8 10 2030 0 Painter, Julian
9 11 2021 !! 9 Haasse, Adam
10 12 2009 0 Tomek, Glenn
11 14 1957 !! 15 Ellis, David
12 15 1945 ! 7 Partis, Michael T
13 13 1939 ! 6 Kuklinski, Andrew
14 18 1937 !! 9 Roza, Peter
15 19 1884 0 Kurniawan, Stephanus
16 22 1883 !! 15 Fedec, John
17 16 1878 !! 9 Taylor, Leon M
18 20 1874 !! 0 Leonhardt, Wolfgang
19 21 1868 !! 9 Kueh, Michael
20 17 1865 !! 9 Maris, Robert

A few of our top 10 are becoming inactive so although young Thomas Donaldson (1830) is likely to overtake me I may not drop out of the top 20 if I can stop losing points :wall:

Trizza
19-12-2005, 10:35 PM
Some of the 'younger' players (though not as young as Ly, Wallis, Song or Obst) who played in the last championship are missing this time: Ronald Yu (playing in the juniors though), Justin Tan, Tomek Rej, Gareth Charles. This group all scored 5, 5.5 or 6 in the last championship, so they weren't totally out of their depth. I'd speculate that the 4 juniors would be almost as good as this group, although I haven't seen a huge amount of their play.

Smerdon, Zhao and Xie are playing again, along with Bjelobrk, who isn't that much older. Given the first 2 were IM's they were probably a little disappointed getting 5.5 and 6 in Adelaide. George seems to have shown definite improvement since then, while Igor is always very solid and just missed out on an IM norm last time I believe. Jonathan Humphrey or Aaron Guthrie could be surprise packets, while Arianne Caoli and Laura Moylan should be competitive.

I hope Jay Lakner does well, though a slight concern is that he has played no competitive chess in 8 months. On the other hand, after only 2 games in 7 months this year I wasn't too rusty, though obviously I wasn't playing in tournaments the strength of the Aust championship.

Rincewind
19-12-2005, 10:36 PM
Shame on you! I know Jay and Tristan very well - I just wish I was as good (at chess) as them.

Gee, I just keep digging that hole deeper, don't I?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2005, 10:47 PM
This would leave:

Guthrie, Aaron FM SA 2251 2120
Pyke, Malcolm VIC 2126 2079
Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055
Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093
Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073

If I have missed anyone, my apologies.

We had to finalise the field prior to Andrew Bird's upcoming playoff with Fuller for the NSW Championship in a few days' time. If he wins he is in as NSW Champion. If not, he is in under the equivalent proficiency rule.

jenni
20-12-2005, 12:39 AM
Hello Jenni,

Final field has been announced, so now down to the real business:

Post 46 of this thread


Unfortunately, looking at the final field, I believe that Nigel Frame will finish last. Therefore I cannot make a bet. Would love to though.

Furthermore, we would have to be betting on junior v adult on those who got in on equal proficency/junior rule.

This would leave:

Guthrie, Aaron FM SA 2251 2120
Pyke, Malcolm VIC 2126 2079
Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055
Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093
Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073

If I have missed anyone, my apologies.

When Aaron is firing he is a very good player - can be a bit erratic? Chris has had some excelent results in Victoria of late - does struggle with his time though. Ray is taking this comp pretty seriously so I am sure will not be finishing last out of this bunch. I will stick to my assertion that Ray, Chris, James and Moulthun will not be finishing at the bottom.....

Garvinator
20-12-2005, 12:48 AM
When Aaron is firing he is a very good player - can be a bit erratic? Chris has had some excelent results in Victoria of late - does struggle with his time though. Ray is taking this comp pretty seriously so I am sure will not be finishing last out of this bunch. I will stick to my assertion that Ray, Chris, James and Moulthun will not be finishing at the bottom.....
I think Aaron will finish ahead of Chris and Ray.
Nice try at getting Moulthun into this list :whistle: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2005, 01:47 AM
I think Aaron will finish ahead of Chris and Ray.
Nice try at getting Moulthun into this list :whistle: :lol:

It would seem to me that if jenni adds Moulthun to the list all she is doing is broadening what she commits herself to by way of predictions.

I'm sure there are plenty of wagers you could agree with jenni if you wanted to (eg you could wager on the issue: "will any junior finish in the last two places"?)

rob
20-12-2005, 09:33 AM
I hope Jay Lakner does well, though a slight concern is that he has played no competitive chess in 8 months. On the other hand, after only 2 games in 7 months this year I wasn't too rusty, though obviously I wasn't playing in tournaments the strength of the Aust championship.
I hope he does well too and I also share your concern.
Perhaps you'd consider offering him a practice match?

jenni
20-12-2005, 09:45 AM
It would seem to me that if jenni adds Moulthun to the list all she is doing is broadening what she commits herself to by way of predictions.

I'm sure there are plenty of wagers you could agree with jenni if you wanted to (eg you could wager on the issue: "will any junior finish in the last two places"?)

We've arranged a private bet between us - and I haven't included Moulthun. :)

firegoat7
20-12-2005, 02:30 PM
Now that an improving adult (Pyke) is being allowed to play the Aus Champs, maybe the Victorians will stop whinging about improving juniors..... :lol:

Lets face it, he got in on rating. He deserves it, much more then some juniors. Remember they still don't allow adults in for how many points they improve, but they do for juniors. :doh:

cheers fg7

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2005, 01:01 PM
Without wishing to discuss any individual case I would like to make it clear that the selection process for "equivalent proficiency" does not consist of just letting people short of the 2150 mark in on rating alone if they are reasonably close. A player could be rated 2140 and yet not be of equivalent proficiency in my view - for instance if their rating had been declining for years and it was ages since they had recorded 2150+ strength performances with anything approaching consistency.

Oepty
21-12-2005, 02:10 PM
Without wishing to discuss any individual case I would like to make it clear that the selection process for "equivalent proficiency" does not consist of just letting people short of the 2150 mark in on rating alone if they are reasonably close. A player could be rated 2140 and yet not be of equivalent proficiency in my view - for instance if their rating had been declining for years and it was ages since they had recorded 2150+ strength performances with anything approaching consistency.

Kevin. Thank you for the work you have done. It is not easy and you can never please everybody but I think you have done a good job.
Scott

Brian_Jones
22-12-2005, 06:39 AM
In the reports to FIDE, it is explicitly stated if local ratings have been used.

I wonder why that is? Maybe some FIDE bias against use of local ratings?

Do you agree that if more than 50% of the players have FIDE ratings (and the tournament is to be FIDE rated) then local ratings should not be used for pairing purposes?

Greg can you confirm that Major and Seniors are indeed preregistered with FIDE.

Ian Rout
22-12-2005, 09:08 AM
Do you agree that if more than 50% of the players have FIDE ratings (and the tournament is to be FIDE rated) then local ratings should not be used for pairing purposes?

Although the question was directed to Greg, my opinion is that if it's a predominantly local tournament then using ACF ratings is better even if the majority of the field have FIDE ratings.

Nearly all of the competitors will have a local rating so the ordering produced will be reasonable. On the other hand those who don't have FIDE ratings may end up in a funny place in the order since we know the FIDE-ACF alignment is not good at lower levels. In addition many of the FIDE ratings for non-elite players are based on a small number of games, or haven't been exercised recently, so aren't necessarily too meaningful.

firegoat7
22-12-2005, 05:11 PM
Hi,

Question: What do people think about Lee Jones' exclusion?

Alan Shore
22-12-2005, 05:37 PM
Hi,

Question: What do people think about Lee Jones' exclusion?

Well... in context of other selections it might be seen to be hard done by.

In my view, Lee should not have been selected, however neither should Pyke, Wallis, Song or Moylan - I'd stand by 2150+ or state champ criteria. If a player is improving well enough, then they'll qualify next time.

But oh well, I'm sure Kevin is happy to have less competition in the Major. :cool:

pax
22-12-2005, 07:36 PM
Question: What do people think about Lee Jones' exclusion?

He's unlucky, being clearly very close to the margin for selection. However, he clearly has not been unfairly treated.

The decision would probably have come down to Moylan, Pyke, and Jones for two places (Norris elected to play the Major didn't he?). Of those three, Jones ranks third on ACF rating, and third on rating improvement (the other two have improved substantially over the last two years. Jones has the highest FIDE rating of the three, but none of the three have played very many FIDE rated games in the last 18 months, so it could be argued that the ACF rating is significantly more informative.

I suspect that, had there been an otherwise odd number, Lee would have been selected. Again, unlucky.

I note that Van Renen has withdrawn from the Major...

Rhubarb
22-12-2005, 08:27 PM
I wonder why that is? In the SP pairing cards in the reports, FIDE ratings are shown but not local ratings. It's to bring it to the attention of the FIDE officials so they know what's going on as far as seeding goes. Helping them out, in other words.


Maybe some FIDE bias against use of local ratings?Well there's no official bias against local ratings, if that's what you mean.


Do you agree that if more than 50% of the players have FIDE ratings (and the tournament is to be FIDE rated) then local ratings should not be used for pairing purposes? It's currently at the organisers' discretion. What's your point, anyway? There's still more unrated than rated players in the Major.


Greg can you confirm that Major and Seniors are indeed preregistered with FIDE.I was in contact with both Graeme and Ian Murray a few days ago. The Major is now preregistered with FIDE. I asked if they wanted the Seniors FIDE rated (it would be possible with a double or triple round robin). They said they would ask the players at the start of the tournament. If they decide they want it FIDE rated it is no problem to send it as an un-preregistered tournament (in some cases, there may be a very small additional charge - I'm yet to speak to Norm Greenwood about this).

Also, the Australian Junior will definitely not be FIDE rated as only a few of the players are FIDE rated (looks to be about 10 out of maybe 70, looking at the participant list).

RuyLopez
22-12-2005, 08:45 PM
I am interested to know if Ronald Yu,Vincent Suttor,James Obst,Michael Wei,Junta Ikeda ,Kevin O'Chee and Peter Jovanovic will also be eligible under this by law to play in the Australian championship? :hmm:

If they are and successfully apply wont this have a major impact on the Australian junior championship? :hmm:

Sorry if im a bit out of date with things(which I am), but nobody's mentioned this yet.

A player U18 may play in the Aus Junior AND the Australian Championship if he wishes (assuming he's eligible for both tournaments). :boohoo:

Garvinator
22-12-2005, 09:13 PM
A player U18 may play in the Aus Junior AND the Australian Championship if he wishes (assuming he's eligible for both tournaments). :boohoo:
and this is exactly what Moulthun Ly is doing.

Garvinator
22-12-2005, 09:17 PM
He's unlucky, being clearly very close to the margin for selection. However, he clearly has not been unfairly treated.

The decision would probably have come down to Moylan, Pyke, and Jones for two places (Norris elected to play the Major didn't he?). Of those three, Jones ranks third on ACF rating, and third on rating improvement (the other two have improved substantially over the last two years. Jones has the highest FIDE rating of the three, but none of the three have played very many FIDE rated games in the last 18 months, so it could be argued that the ACF rating is significantly more informative.

I suspect that, had there been an otherwise odd number, Lee would have been selected. Again, unlucky.

So, are you suggesting that Lee missed out, not because he didnt meet the criteria like other similiar applicants, but because he would have caused an odd number.

If this turns out to be the case, then that is just plain wrong. I thought the regulations didnt state that a certain number would only qualify, or that if there is an odd number of acceptable applicants, then one will be dropped to create even numbers.

If Lee was accepted and that created an odd number, then the selectors just select then next person or find a high rated person from the greater brisbane area to play to fill the bye.

I really hope a person hasnt been left out of the australian championship, just because they created an odd number.

pax
22-12-2005, 11:51 PM
So, are you suggesting that Lee missed out, not because he didnt meet the criteria like other similiar applicants, but because he would have caused an odd number.

Nooo, I'm suggesting that if there was an odd number the top ranked player who *didn't* make the cut would probably get the opportunity to play. Think of it as a reserve list, which Lee (probably) is at the top of.

I believe there is a clause in the regs for this situation (something like "one other player who doesn't otherwise meet the criteria").

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2005, 02:49 PM
But oh well, I'm sure Kevin is happy to have less competition in the Major. :cool:

Just to clarify I assume Belthasar is referring to Kevin Sheldrick. I am not playing in Brisbane and would certainly not have accepted appointment to the selection committee had I been an entrant in either event.


I'd stand by 2150+ or state champ criteria. If a player is improving well enough, then they'll qualify next time.

Am I right that here you are disagreeing with the selection criteria themselves rather than the selections as made under those criteria?

To clarify re the odd/even number thing, again without necessary reference to specific cases, what pax says is right. If there are an odd number of applicants who are considered to qualify after all decisions have been made, then we would promote an otherwise ineligible player. There is a by-law permitting us to do this, or in cases where that by-law has already been used, it is possible to get a ruling from Council, or as a last resort allow a bye. A player who the selection committee deems of equivalent proficiency cannot be rejected to even the numbers.

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 02:28 AM
Just to clarify I assume Belthasar is referring to Kevin Sheldrick. I am not playing in Brisbane and would certainly not have accepted appointment to the selection committee had I been an entrant in either event.

Yes, I was referring to KS. BTW, if you had of won the Tas State Champs, would you have played?


Am I right that here you are disagreeing with the selection criteria themselves rather than the selections as made under those criteria?

Oh absolutely. Under the criteria, the decisions were fine. Lee was unlucky on qualification but not hard done by selection criteria, so KB gets the nod for a job well done. I just disagree with E.P. completely, with a cutoff as low as 2150 for an Australian Championship - the alternative is to have E.P. but raise the cutoff to 2250. Otherwise the thing is just a fancy-pants Open.

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2005, 12:59 PM
Yes, I was referring to KS. BTW, if you had of won the Tas State Champs, would you have played?

Not sure. I do intend to have another shot at the top division sometime if I get a chance. I learnt a lot from my first attempt and believe I can do significantly better if I get another go.

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 01:05 PM
Not sure. I do intend to have another shot at the top division sometime if I get a chance. I learnt a lot from my first attempt and believe I can do significantly better if I get another go.
If Nigel decided not to play, would you have attempted to be nominated as the Tas representative?

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2005, 02:57 PM
If Nigel decided not to play, would you have attempted to be nominated as the Tas representative?

Doubt it. I did not make such an attempt in 1999-2000 when I was comparatively well off financially.

Vlad
24-12-2005, 08:16 PM
Oh absolutely. Under the criteria, the decisions were fine. Lee was unlucky on qualification but not hard done by selection criteria, so KB gets the nod for a job well done. I just disagree with E.P. completely, with a cutoff as low as 2150 for an Australian Championship - the alternative is to have E.P. but raise the cutoff to 2250. Otherwise the thing is just a fancy-pants Open.

Ok, let us think what would have happened if your criterion were in place.

First, there would be about 18 players only, rather than 30. Do you suggest running an 11-round Swiss with 18 players?

Second, there would be a huge jump from the last person entering on rating to the last person qualifying through the state championships.

Increasing rating even further (to play a round-robin) would make the second problem even worse. There would be two separate sub competitions, the first one consisting of gms and ims, the second one consisting of state champions.

As you can see what you have suggested is not implementable. I believe the current 2150 cut-off makes sense. There are 30 players in the championship, the optimal number to trade-off between problems 1 and 2 on one hand and making this competition exclusive on the other hand.

There is something that can be improved though. The selection criterion should be explicit and transparent. Having a number of people let in the last minute is not a way to create good incentives.

Alan Shore
26-12-2005, 11:29 AM
Ok, let us think what would have happened if your criterion were in place.

First, there would be about 18 players only, rather than 30. Do you suggest running an 11-round Swiss with 18 players?

Count again - you must have dreamed up the number 18. It's 21 minimum for the o2250 rule, plus the E.P. clause. All 2250's, plus state champs Frame, Obst, Bird, Lakner and AJ champ Ly = 21.

Alternatively, it is 25 players, with Pyke, Moylan, Guthrie, Song and Wallis missing out.

Therefore that would be perfectly acceptable. :hand:


Second, there would be a huge jump from the last person entering on rating to the last person qualifying through the state championships.

Yeah... Ly 2148 and Humphrey 2189. I don't think 41 is a 'huge jump'.

If it was 2250+, E.P would determine a lesser difference than 102.


Increasing rating even further (to play a round-robin) would make the second problem even worse. There would be two separate sub competitions, the first one consisting of gms and ims, the second one consisting of state champions.

There already is that problem, which I am trying to stop. The State reps are there only for experience and because they won the right, not to win the tournament. These 20xx players are just clogging up an elite tournament.


As you can see what you have suggested is not implementable.

Rubbish.


I believe the current 2150 cut-off makes sense. There are 30 players in the championship, the optimal number to trade-off between problems 1 and 2 on one hand and making this competition exclusive on the other hand.

More rubbish.


There is something that can be improved though. The selection criterion should be explicit and transparent. Having a number of people let in the last minute is not a way to create good incentives.

This I certainly agree with. Hence, making it 2150+ with no EP rule.

four four two
26-12-2005, 12:03 PM
Belthasar,if you want the tournament to be elite then you simply make it a 12 player tournament round robin.

The players below 2150,who are not state champions ,are not clogging up this tournament anymore than some of the state champions.
They too are trying to gain experience.

The state champions who come from the weaker playing pools[tas,wa,,act] have "won" the right to play on the basis of geography,not actual playing strength. That doesnt mean that those states representatives are necessarily going to be weaker[below 2100],but you cant guarantee they will be around 2100 strength each time the australian championship is on.

In my opinion the state/territory rule should be done away with.

Alan Shore
26-12-2005, 05:10 PM
Belthasar,if you want the tournament to be elite then you simply make it a 12 player tournament round robin.

I wouldn't mind if that were the case.


In my opinion the state/territory rule should be done away with.

I wouldn't be against that either.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2005, 06:35 PM
There already is that problem, which I am trying to stop. The State reps are there only for experience and because they won the right, not to win the tournament. These 20xx players are just clogging up an elite tournament.

In 2001-2 one of the eventual co-winners of the tournament lost in round two to a state champion whose ACF rating at the time was 1931. The state champs and qualifying 20xx players may not be there to win the tournament, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily too weak to influence the outcome.

Alan Shore
26-12-2005, 07:08 PM
In 2001-2 one of the eventual co-winners of the tournament lost in round two to a state champion whose ACF rating at the time was 1931. The state champs and qualifying 20xx players may not be there to win the tournament, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily too weak to influence the outcome.

Sure, upsets happen - why I'm fond of the 1st round Swiss pairings.

Btw, I think that game was Ian Wright vs. Nick Speck, right? I laughed when I saw that result, was a good win for Ian.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2005, 08:18 PM
Btw, I think that game was Ian Wright vs. Nick Speck, right? I laughed when I saw that result, was a good win for Ian.

Correct. Wright had demonstrated correct KNB vs K technique vs Feldman the previous round. Then he lost a bunch in a row after beating Speck and finished up with 4.5/11.

peter_parr
10-01-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
I have played in the Australian Championship on a number of occasions in the past 18 years. Although my ACF rating has often been below 2150, I have scored 50% or better every time I have been accepted to play in the Championships.

This is because I play better at slower time limits and the ACF ratings include one hour chess which is always a bit of a lottery and guaranteed to cost rating points!

I am sure that there are lots of players below 2149 who are capable of performing well in the Australian Championship but they are hampered by fast time limits and other factors such as where they live and the types of events available to them to consistantly gain rating points.

Surely qualifying places through the Grand Prix is the way to go!



Nonsense!

In the period 1993-2005 Brian Jones you scored 50% only once in the Australian Championship (played at your preferred time control).

In 1998 you were placed in the reserves event by the ACF selectors finishing in a ten way tie 17th-26th equal after scoring 4/11 (9 of the 11 games against the 12 lowest rated players) in the 1996 championship event.

The first job of a selector is to check the accuracy of statements made by applicants.

Brian's claim that his results are better with the slower time control need investigation.

Peter Parr


Having played in the 1998 reserves event. I can state, with some authority, that the last round was not rated by the ACF. I also think the accuracy of those records, concerning that particular event, may be contestable.

cheers Fg7


After 9 rounds of the 1998 Australian Reserves Championship Brian Jones (2027) was placed 38th – 56th equal.
According to the bulletins Brian defeated A.Greenwood (1648) and K.Holt (1726) in the last two rounds so in the final two rounds he jumped up 20 places and finished 17th to 26th equal.

Firegoat 7 is correct. The last round of the 1998 Australian Reserves Championship was not rated.
However in fairness to Brian Jones (2027 at the time) he won his last two games taking him up from 38th-56th equal to a ten way tie 17th-26th equal in the reserves event (average rating of Brian’s eleven opponents (all rated between 1544 and 2047) was 1753 giving Brian a performance rating of 1852.
This was a performance rating of 298 rating points below the minimum rating of 2150 for the title event.


Peter Parr

firegoat7
12-01-2006, 11:56 AM
Raymond Song put in an excellent performance. 6/11 in that field is really quite something. His four losses were to players rated more than 300 points higher. His two draws were to players rated more than 200 points higher. Performance rating was around 2320. I cannot understand the people that would make a kid like Raymond wait another two years to play in a tournament of this calibre.

Well let us continue this argument.

Pax's position is typical of the deception that he uses in constructing his argument. Basically he suggests that Song is mega talented and that all stops should be pulled out in Australian chess to fast track the kid into becoming our next grandmaster. I however disagree with his argument, because it is not based on any consistency, it is simply based on Pax's own subjective opinion about what Australian chess ought to be. In his case, it is for talented individual juniors to be promoted at the expense of adults. I disagree.

Let us point out two important facts before beginning this discussion.

1) We all agree that Raymond Song, Chris Wallis and Moulthun Ly are exceptional talents.
2) Some of us believe that there are talented adult players who are worthy of opportunites ie. Pyke, Bird, Moylan, even dare I say it Johansen (I cannot believe anybody thinks he does not belong in the Olympiad team).

Now before this very specific tournament (the Australian Championships) there was a lot of discussion about who ought to be let in and who ought to be not let in. I argued, along with others, that making exceptions for talented individuals is not the correct way to decide such matters. I still believe this to be the case. I still believe that such subjective rulings destroy the fabric of competitive chess. I also believe that it is to the detriment of young players that they are placed under such pressures, so early in their chess careers.

In hindsight, Song and Wallis have done very well for their first Australian championship. Songs performance was exceptional and Wallis', for his first big tournament was commendable. However, this does not mean necessarily that they ought to have played in the tournament. All it means is that they took their opportunities.

An important point, because a lot of people on this board thought that both Pyke and Moylan deserved their shots, while even more thought they didn't , and I must say they both performed exceptionally, all things considered. Notice they also took their opportunities when they were presented.

Now lets imagine all the players had performed badly. Let us imagine that Song, Wallis, Moylan, Pyke etc had all had disastrous results. What would people say- again after the event- about such a story. Well, I believe that people like Pax would say....for juniors...they are just young, its all part of the learning curve...while for adults he would probably say...I told you, that is the last time we should ever let in such talentless players!...remember it is very easy in hindsight to be correct.

I must admit I would pretty much say the same thing I have always said. You don't push juniors into making chess no fun and you don't judge any chess player on 1 tournament performance- remember shirov?

By the way, in hindsight, the Tasmanian player ought not to have been playing in the Australian championship. No Tasmanian has ever scored 50% in the championship, to the best of my knowledge. But, I would hasten to add, I argued this before he was even playing i.e ( It is not personal Mr Bonham, it is a fact-Tasmanian chess is weak). To the best of my knowledge, we are the only country in the world that continues to utilise this outdated state based selection criteria.

What I would like to see is the ACF keeping the top 16 from the previous cycle then start a massive qualification system for the other 16 spots, based on competitive tournament qualification. But hey pigs might fly aswell.

cheers Fg7

arosar
12-01-2006, 12:23 PM
Now, I must say, this fg7 is arguing fairly persuasively.

AR

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Pax's position is typical of the deception that he uses in constructing his argument. Basically he suggests that Song is mega talented and that all stops should be pulled out in Australian chess to fast track the kid into becoming our next grandmaster.

This is a typical instance of you interpreting someone else's words for them, something which you get ludicrously offended when anyone does it for you. All I can see pax suggesting is that Song had earned the right to play in this particular tournament.


In his case, it is for talented individual juniors to be promoted at the expense of adults.

Again this is a furphy because a player's inclusion in the Australian Championship never deprives another deserving player of a place.


I still believe that such subjective rulings destroy the fabric of competitive chess.

You doubtless believe they caused the tsunami in Asia in 2004 as well.


Now lets imagine all the players had performed badly.

You have to imagine it, because it didn't happen and was extremely unlikely to happen. And again you are stating pax's position for him, in complete contradiction to your claimed position on this practice.


By the way, in hindsight, the Tasmanian player ought not to have been playing in the Australian championship. No Tasmanian has ever scored 50% in the championship, to the best of my knowledge.

Your "knowledge" is far from the best. Otto Weber, thirteen times Tasmanian Champion, competed in the Australian Championship regularly and finished 50% or better multiple times, an example being Melbourne 1962-3 where he tied for third on 8/13 beating Purdy jnr and Koshnitsky among others and drawing with Purdy snr and Ozols.


To the best of my knowledge, we are the only country in the world that continues to utilise this outdated state based selection criteria.

Your knowledge is again deficient - Canada also gives spots to state and territory champions, although with a rating cap of 2000 for some of its territories. I would be interested in knowing how many countries' selection criteria you are even familiar with anyway.

shaun
12-01-2006, 01:38 PM
By the way, in hindsight, the Tasmanian player ought not to have been playing in the Australian championship. No Tasmanian has ever scored 50% in the championship, to the best of my knowledge.

As far as I can tell, a Tasmanian player finished first in the Championship.

pax
12-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Well let us continue this argument.

Pax's position is typical of the deception that he uses in constructing his argument. Basically he suggests that Song is mega talented and that all stops should be pulled out in Australian chess to fast track the kid into becoming our next grandmaster. I however disagree with his argument, because it is not based on any consistency, it is simply based on Pax's own subjective opinion about what Australian chess ought to be. In his case, it is for talented individual juniors to be promoted at the expense of adults. I disagree.


This is total fiction, as is the rest of your diatribe.

I never suggested Pyke and Moylan should not play (in fact, I believe the only people suggesting they shouldn't play were arguing for a rigid cutoff for all players including juniors). I never suggested that juniors should play at the expense of adults.

In fact, I am on record as saying that I would be happy for the ACF to move to a system which codifies the definition of improving players (say, players rated over 2000 who have improved 200 points in two years for example), and admits Juniors and Adults equally on that basis.

firegoat7
12-01-2006, 04:30 PM
This is a typical instance of you interpreting someone else's words for them, something which you get ludicrously offended when anyone does it for you. All I can see pax suggesting is that Song had earned the right to play in this particular tournament.

You are an idiot troll who deserves no respect and will get none. You cannot even seem to comprehend the most basic of arguments.



Again this is a furphy because a player's inclusion in the Australian Championship never deprives another deserving player of a place.

Again, You are an idiot troll who deserves no respect and will get none. You cannot even seem to comprehend the most basic of arguments.


You doubtless believe they caused the tsunami in Asia in 2004 as well.

For a third time, You are an idiot troll who deserves no respect and will get none. You cannot even seem to comprehend the most basic of arguments.


You have to imagine it, because it didn't happen and was extremely unlikely to happen. And again you are stating pax's position for him, in complete contradiction to your claimed position on this practice.

For the 4th time, You are an idiot troll who deserves no respect and will get none. You cannot even seem to comprehend the most basic of arguments.



Your "knowledge" is far from the best. Otto Weber, thirteen times Tasmanian Champion, competed in the Australian Championship regularly and finished 50% or better multiple times, an example being Melbourne 1962-3 where he tied for third on 8/13 beating Purdy jnr and Koshnitsky among others and drawing with Purdy snr and Ozols.

I stand corrected. Let it be known for the record that 40 years some old geezer in Tasmania could play chess as opposed to the current generation who cannot even get over 2000. Please accept my humble apologies.




Your knowledge is again deficient - Canada also gives spots to state and territory champions, although with a rating cap of 2000 for some of its territories. I would be interested in knowing how many countries' selection criteria you are even familiar with anyway.

I stand corrected again, let me re-phrase. Thanks to Mr Bonbot, now to the best of my knowledge only Australia and Canada, those giant heavyweights of world chess, allow direct entry for their national championships. No doubt Australian chess is heading in the right direction by utilising such a method of selection-not.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
12-01-2006, 04:47 PM
This is total fiction, as is the rest of your diatribe.

I never suggested Pyke and Moylan should not play (in fact, I believe the only people suggesting they shouldn't play were arguing for a rigid cutoff for all players including juniors). I never suggested that juniors should play at the expense of adults.

In fact, I am on record as saying that I would be happy for the ACF to move to a system which codifies the definition of improving players (say, players rated over 2000 who have improved 200 points in two years for example), and admits Juniors and Adults equally on that basis.

The only record you are on is your repeated denial to apologise for being such a tool. It is clear from all your previous posts that you support juniors being selected as improving players and you denied that adults improved. Basically there are two problems with your argument.

1) You appear to have no comprehension of what chess strength is...as is suggested by your ridiculous justification of why an adult player ought to be included, which I add..Is a belated attempt to appease adult players who you have previously offended i.e. dragicevic, pyke, bird etc.

2) Anybody who suggests that including an unqualified junior, over a more qualified adult, simply because of a dodgy ACF by law, that values subjective over objective strength is simply in denial that their juniorcentric preoccupation is discrimitory towards adults. This time it was Lee Jones' turn to miss out, no doubt according to your logic, Mr Wallis deserved his spot, ahead of Lee. And hey why your at it, lets throw out our own homegrown FMs and include Canadian ones in our National championship. What a good idea..not.

cheers Fg7

pax
12-01-2006, 05:46 PM
Is a belated attempt to appease adult players who you have previously offended i.e. dragicevic, pyke, bird etc.

When did I offend any of these players, except in your warped imagination?

bobby1972
13-01-2006, 08:32 AM
hey firegoat you know in your heart that that kid at 10 is more talented than any of the others have a look at his games,he should be helped because he has a future

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 08:34 AM
Discussion from this thread related to olympiad selections has been moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3584)


You are an idiot troll who deserves no respect and will get none. You cannot even seem to comprehend the most basic of arguments.

An idiot troll calling me an idiot troll does not make me an idiot troll. You have been busted misinterpreting the arguments of another and are, in your nearly universal fashion on this board, responding ungraciously rather than admitting defeat. As for your "respect", I don't want it - it is clearly one of those human emotions you just don't understand.

(Ditto for next three replies - you argue like a desperate patzer novice shuffling a piece back and forth against an FM in the belief that if you put the same piece on the same square three times you get a draw.)


I stand corrected. Let it be known for the record that 40 years some old geezer in Tasmania could play chess as opposed to the current generation who cannot even get over 2000. Please accept my humble apologies.

And you can apologise again because several Tasmanians have been over 2000 at some stage in the last ten years (eg Sakov, Bemrose, Bonham for one whole ratings period, Fearnley-Sander and possibly Pavicic) and above all, the top-ranked current Tasmanian player has a rating of 2184.


I stand corrected again, let me re-phrase. Thanks to Mr Bonbot, now to the best of my knowledge only Australia and Canada, those giant heavyweights of world chess, allow direct entry for their national championships. No doubt Australian chess is heading in the right direction by utilising such a method of selection-not.

I notice your failure to answer my question. List all the national federations you know of that have statelike subentities but do not allow state champions entry.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 09:00 AM
And hey why your at it, lets throw out our own homegrown FMs and include Canadian ones in our National championship. What a good idea..not.

Dougherty was admitted due to exceptional circumstances - he had been misled by another website into believing it was an open event and entered and paid his airfare on this basis. I don't blame the organisers for this at all but I have recommended that in future the Australian Championships official site carry a very prominent message that the Australian Championships is not an open event to prevent this from re-occurring.

Lee Jones was not "thrown out" - he was not deemed of equivalent proficiency and was not admitted in the first place. Had he been considered of equivalent proficiency he would have played irrespective of the Dougherty situation, the bye or anything else.

If I were you, I would be crawling back under my rock and saying nothing further on the whole subject of the Australian Championships selections. The outcomes in terms of who was selected, who was not, and what results were then acheived have more or less completely embarrassed your pre-event conspiratorial whining.

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 01:41 PM
An idiot troll calling me an idiot troll does not make me an idiot troll.



You are what you are Bonbot- that is "an idiot' and " a troll'.



You have been busted misinterpreting the arguments of another and are, in your nearly universal fashion on this board, responding ungraciously rather than admitting defeat.
Total horse poo, typical of your pathetic style.



As for your "respect", I don't want it - it is clearly one of those human emotions you just don't understand. You don't deserve any respect, regardless of whether in your mind I understand it or not, jerk




(Ditto for next three replies - you argue like a desperate patzer novice shuffling a piece back and forth against an FM in the belief that if you put the same piece on the same square three times you get a draw.)
Listen loser, not only do you have an overated opinion of yourself..(probably about 1800 points above what your real argument rating would be)..but also, even if I was a patzer I would have more natural talent then a tired old hack like yourself.




And you can apologise again because several Tasmanians have been over 2000 at some stage in the last ten years (eg Sakov, Bemrose, Bonham for one whole ratings period, Fearnley-Sander and possibly Pavicic) and above all, the top-ranked current Tasmanian player has a rating of 2184.

Some drop in import is hardly conclusive pove of a thriving Tasmanian chess scene is it- Exactly how many games has he played in the state?. As for the other bunch of people I don't see any of them having a rating over 2000 at the moment, do you? Obviously comprehension is not one of your strong points.



I notice your failure to answer my question. List all the national federations you know of that have statelike subentities but do not allow state champions entry. I have no interest in engaging on this issue with a troll like you at all. Furthermore, if you are really interested in the structure of other chess federations go and find out yourself, you lazy prat. Just click on google and have a search it shouldn't be too difficult for a boffin like yourself. That is of course if you are interested in finding out about championship structures- which as we both know you are not.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 01:52 PM
Dougherty was admitted due to exceptional circumstances - he had been misled by another website into believing it was an open event and entered and paid his airfare on this basis. I don't blame the organisers for this at all but I have recommended that in future the Australian Championships official site carry a very prominent message that the Australian Championships is not an open event to prevent this from re-occurring.

Translation- ACF incompetence




Lee Jones was not "thrown out" - he was not deemed of equivalent proficiency and was not admitted in the first place. Had he been considered of equivalent proficiency he would have played irrespective of the Dougherty situation, the bye or anything else.



Translated- Lee Jones was prevented from playing in the championship by selective organisers, even though he applied for the event and had a rating comparable to some of the other players.

Question- What would any of these players really know about chess strength.
A Tasmanian, A Lawyer and a chess administrator- My guess very little, just like the rest of us amateurs.



If I were you, I would be crawling back under my rock and saying nothing further on the whole subject of the Australian Championships selections. The outcomes in terms of who was selected, who was not, and what results were then acheived have more or less completely embarrassed your pre-event conspiratorial whining.

You still understand nothing do you. You still are too thick to comprehend what the issues are. You still labour under your deluded egotistical interpretation that I both care what you think anymore or even bother to listen to your lame attempts to justify your self serving behaviour. Try and get it through your thick head I am not talking about you or myself, nor do I want to.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 02:20 PM
hey firegoat you know in your heart that that kid at 10 is more talented than any of the others have a look at his games,he should be helped because he has a future

Bobby, dont be an idiot. Nobody denies anything about Songs talent. The question is one of selectioncriteria

If you were really interested in this issue you would start by saying should any of the current selection criteria be changed. If you believe no, then you are for maintaining the status quo and should butt out of the conversation and accept that other people have a right to voice a different opinion. Social change is inevitable, it is a part of life.

If you believe some of the selection criteria should be changed then you should make your point and engage in a dialectic with others about it. I have made numerous points. But here are another two

Imagine If I am in the border line area of selection next time the championship comes around...Do you think I would feel confident having to rely on the opinions of Bonbot or Billbot regarding selection...of course I wouldn't.


Please remeber this is not just about me, its about everybody...selectors are human beings, everyone within chess circles have ther likes and dislikes in regard to certain players, for whatever reasons, and have discriminated against them even if they were not consciously aware they were doing so. Why place your trust in such a flawed system. One that is based on human emotion.

Imagine would have happenend if Sweeney had been playing in the championship and decided to withdraw from the event ala Eddy Levi. Do you think that he would have been able to get away with it unscathed? Somehow I seriously doubt it. Does the ACF have a policy on such matters? Me doubts it.

Australian chess should not depend on amateur chess players judging the ability and playing strength of other chess players. It should be based on competitive results as deemed by tournament practise. This is my belief, nobody here has ever produced an argument that has come close to swaying my opinion, with the exception of Ian Rout who a couple of years ago, noted, it may be necessary when a player is competing overseas.

If we accept my premise, which no doubt, you do not, then to play in the most premium event in Australia, the ACF ought to adopt a consistent structural policy where it rewards the best chess tournaments, not mickey mouse state championships and inconsistent quantitative comparisons between rating groups that do not realistically represent a universal qualitative whole called 'Australian chess'. All people are not equal in Australain chess and my aim is to destroy this inequality, in regards to opportunities.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2006, 02:35 PM
Bobby, dont be an idiot. Nobody denies anything about Songs talent. The question is one of selectioncriteria

If you were really interested in this issue you would start by saying should any of the current selection criteria be changed. If you believe no, then you are for maintaining the status quo and should butt out of the conversation and accept that other people have a right to voice a different opinion. Social change is inevitable, it is a part of life.Why should he butt out just because you say so. Whether Bobby supports the current criteria or not he has every right to express his opinion just as much as you do to express yours.

bobby1972
13-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Hey You Butt Out And Go Back To Preach To Your Passengers The Only Thing I Think Your Borderline Is Unemployed .

pax
13-01-2006, 03:51 PM
Hey You Butt Out And Go Back To Preach To Your Passengers The Only Thing I Think Your Borderline Is Unemployed .

And perhaps borderline insane...

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 05:08 PM
You are what you are Bonbot- that is "an idiot' and " a troll'.

You saying it does not make it so. As a general rule it is safe to assume that almost everything you post is false.


Listen loser,

Since it's a BB, I prefer to read. A skill you should acquire sometime.


not only do you have an overated opinion of yourself..(probably about 1800 points above what your real argument rating would be)..but also, even if I was a patzer I would have more natural talent then a tired old hack like yourself.

It's not just me, 300goat, it's that you lose debates by a wide margin here, virtually every single time, to just about every other poster. You have no natural talent. You don't even have the most basic clue of how to argue or how to troll without making a twit of yourself. The only thing you can do with any skill is caricature, and that's invariably undermined by being too obviously based on unfounded polemical rants.


Some drop in import is hardly conclusive pove of a thriving Tasmanian chess scene is it

He's not a drop-in import, he was born here. Had he been a drop-in import he would have appeared on the overseas list.

Furthermore I was not arguing about the health of Tassie chess or otherwise, just pointing out that your statements were factually false. I suspect that if we had three grandmasters here you would still be knocking us on the grounds that we weren't as good as Iceland.


- Exactly how many games has he played in the state?.

Seven. Why, do you think he will have any difficulty maintaining his rating at that level here? (It was based on his FIDE rating and his first rated tournament here resulted in no change.)


As for the other bunch of people I don't see any of them having a rating over 2000 at the moment, do you?

Yes. Try the master list. Fearnley-Sander 2037 is mainly overseas but tends to play when he does come back here for significant lengths of time. Sakov 2036 has only been inactive for a bit over two years and was playing sporadically anyway so we don't regard him as off the scene.

In fact there are seven Tasmanians currently rated over 2000 of whom only two have clearly quit.


Obviously comprehension is not one of your strong points.

No, you're just trying to reinterpret your own words to save your lazy fact-averse assertions. You said none of the current crop of Tasmanian players could get their rating over 2000. Whether a person's rating is over 2000 at this present point of time is immaterial to whether they are capable of getting their rating over 2000.


I have no interest in engaging on this issue with a troll like you at all.

Then leave the debate, more graciously than you have conducted it. But based on your past weak form I believe you will continue to "engage".


Furthermore, if you are really interested in the structure of other chess federations go and find out yourself, you lazy prat.

Actually I have done that to a degree, and reported some results here before, but I don't believe you've done much research and I suspect the number of federations you base your comments on is less than ten.

Now, go back to writing your Mills and Boons.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 05:28 PM
Translation- ACF incompetence

More than a little harsh in the circumstances described above.


Translated- Lee Jones was prevented from playing in the championship by selective organisers, even though he applied for the event and had a rating comparable to some of the other players.

Question- What would any of these players really know about chess strength.
A Tasmanian, A Lawyer and a chess administrator- My guess very little, just like the rest of us amateurs.

The By-Laws are there to recognise that while ratings are ideally the guide to who belongs in and who doesn't, there are circumstances in which you can and should attempt to second-guess them, to give some players the benefit of a doubt created by recent stronger-than-rating performances. That the mean PR of the six players selected was 2180 suggests that in this case we did an acceptable job of this. Furthermore none of those who applied unsuccessfully but still competed in the other events performed at 2150 level or near it. Again, I don't wish to discuss specific cases explicitly.


You still understand nothing do you. You still are too thick to comprehend what the issues are.

You change which issue you whinge about constantly as each successive whinge is defeated (after the usual token show of fighting on for a while) but it's very clear what you were whinging about before the event.


You still labour under your deluded egotistical interpretation that I both care what you think anymore

Where is your evidence that I care?


or even bother to listen to your lame attempts to justify your self serving behaviour.

In which case your whinges about me not interpreting you correctly are the hypocritical fibs of a very bad debater/troll. If you're not "listening" no wonder you don't understand.


Try and get it through your thick head I am not talking about you or myself, nor do I want to.

Where did I say you were?

However every time you say anything of the "you ..." form in these discussions you are talking about me, albeit inaccurately, insincerely and from some accounts obsessively/pathologically. Furthermore I suspect many of your whinges are really all about you and your resentments of others getting opportunities you don't.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 06:05 PM
If you were really interested in this issue you would start by saying should any of the current selection criteria be changed. If you believe no, then you are for maintaining the status quo and should butt out of the conversation and accept that other people have a right to voice a different opinion.

The above is offensive and should be retracted because nothing that bobby says implies that people have no right to voice a different opinion. Indeed you are the one approaching but not quite reaching that view by suggesting those for the status quo should shut up.


Social change is inevitable, it is a part of life.

The social changes you push for are either reactionary or cloud-cuckoo land, which makes you the chess social change equivalent of the Citizens Electoral Council.


Imagine If I am in the border line area of selection next time the championship comes around...Do you think I would feel confident having to rely on the opinions of Bonbot or Billbot regarding selection...of course I wouldn't.

I would absent myself from any selection applied for by you, Matthew Sweeney, David Richards or anyone else in Australian chess who I was flaming regularly on the BB. While I do not believe I would be biased in my assessments, it is the potential for that perception that would concern me.


Please remeber this is not just about me,

Oh yes it is.


Imagine would have happenend if Sweeney had been playing in the championship and decided to withdraw from the event ala Eddy Levi. Do you think that he would have been able to get away with it unscathed? Somehow I seriously doubt it. Does the ACF have a policy on such matters? Me doubts it.

You cannot claim inconsistency based on that - Levi has not even been reported yet let alone had his case heard.


Australian chess should not depend on amateur chess players judging the ability and playing strength of other chess players. It should be based on competitive results as deemed by tournament practise. This is my belief, nobody here has ever produced an argument that has come close to swaying my opinion, with the exception of Ian Rout who a couple of years ago, noted, it may be necessary when a player is competing overseas.

You are just too deluded to admit when you've been demolished. Anyone can look up the threads for themselves - a small sample of tournaments is too unreliable, a large sample makes it too hard for all deserving players to qualify.


All people are not equal in Australain chess and my aim is to destroy this inequality, in regards to opportunities.

The previous debates showed that all the exemptions can be justified on the grounds of preventing potential inequalities created by local, age and gender factors.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 06:14 PM
Moved several posts here from "remarkable performances" as they are clearly a continuation of the firegoat-vs-almost-everyone debate re selection policy and not all that relevant to the issue of who did or did not perform remarkably.

Garvinator
13-01-2006, 06:29 PM
Moved several posts here from "remarkable performances" as they are clearly a continuation of the firegoat-vs-almost-everyone debate re selection policy and not all that relevant to the issue of who did or did not perform remarkably.
I am actually for tightning up the selection criteria for the australian championship division and making it clearer as to what gets you in and what doesnt.

I dont think any of Song, Wallis, Pyke, Guthrie or Moylan should have gotten a run as I support a strict 2150 and nothing less. State champions under a rating of 2000 should not be admitted either.

I just dont see any point debating the points because the current criteria wont change.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 07:10 PM
I am actually for tightning up the selection criteria for the australian championship division and making it clearer as to what gets you in and what doesnt.

I dont think any of Song, Wallis, Pyke, Guthrie or Moylan should have gotten a run as I support a strict 2150 and nothing less. State champions under a rating of 2000 should not be admitted either.

I just dont see any point debating the points because the current criteria wont change.

They certainly won't while many players who get in under selection continue to perform very well while some players in automatically on rating perform at below the cutoff mark. As for state champs under 2000, the problem is that if an area is hit by a ratings glitch, a state champ who is sub-2000 rated might well be actually quite a bit stronger than that. Also it is harder to keep your rating up if you are dominating a small pool of weaker players, especially as you will often take draws against lower rated players to ensure tournament victories.

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 07:11 PM
The above is offensive and should be retracted because nothing that bobby says implies that people have no right to voice a different opinion. Indeed you are the one approaching but not quite reaching that view by suggesting those for the status quo should shut up.


Get of your high horse drama queen. There is no point in expressing an opinion that is the status quo, you have nothing to offer the debate except your stupid diatribe. Anyway if you read carefully, which of course you don't, I never actually said he was maintaning the status quo with his opinions. I merely corrected him on the issue, since he was implying something else. So go take a long walk of a short pier.



The social changes you push for are either reactionary or cloud-cuckoo land, which makes you the chess social change equivalent of the Citizens Electoral Council. trolling nonsense from a conservative nutbag



I would absent myself from any selection applied for by you, Matthew Sweeney, David Richards or anyone else in Australian chess who I was flaming regularly on the BB. While I do not believe I would be biased in my assessments, it is the potential for that perception that would concern me.
wow, what a wonderful feeling of moral correctness. As usual you miss the point yet agian, it is not about you.



You cannot claim inconsistency based on that - Levi has not even been reported yet let alone had his case heard. I can claim whatever I like peabrain.



You are just too deluded to admit when you've been demolished. Anyone can look up the threads for themselves - a small sample of tournaments is too unreliable, a large sample makes it too hard for all deserving players to qualify. You have too much time on your hands and an unfortunate pre-occupation with comapartive analysis based on abstracting universalising



The previous debates showed that all the exemptions can be justified on the grounds of preventing potential inequalities created by local, age and gender factors. Look peanut, If you really cared about the junior issue, you would simply allow 3 junior qualifyers into the tournament instead of 1, but no, clowns like you need some control so that they can waste everybodies time, by pretending to make important decisions that should be automatic. Just think, instead of wasting all that time on championship and olympiad selection you could have been fulfilling a useful function for the ACF instead of re-inventing the wheel, again and again and again.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 07:22 PM
I am actually for tightning up the selection criteria for the australian championship division and making it clearer as to what gets you in and what doesnt.

I dont think any of Song, Wallis, Pyke, Guthrie or Moylan should have gotten a run as I support a strict 2150 and nothing less. State champions under a rating of 2000 should not be admitted either.

I just dont see any point debating the points because the current criteria wont change.

Well at last somebody with a backbone, gives a thought out opinion based on real observation instead of imaginative reactionism.
Gray you r a credit to free thought, but I disagree...Is that ok, we are after all grown up adults..

I think the rating cut off is an unrealistic problem. Do you want to know why?

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 07:35 PM
Ah, nice to see firegoat who said he had no interest in engaging with me is again back at it less than a day after giving up. Do you smoke? If so I'd hate to see your quitting program.


Get of your high horse drama queen.

You were the one being melodramatic about bobby's comments.


There is no point in expressing an opinion that is the status quo,

That is a completely moronic view/troll (my money's on the latter, but your capacity for taking nonsense seriously is amazing). Expression of a pro status quo opinion, in cases where it is justified, can:

* disclose advantages of the status quo that readers may have been unfamiliar with.
* disclose disadvantages of the proposed alternatives
* ensure that those who rush into alternatives are at least aware that the status quo has some basis in reason
* provide evidence concerning the number of people who support the status quo and their reasons for doing so.
* traumatise armchair revolutionary frothheads. This is always amusing!

Of course, the status quo in life generally should only be defended where it is defensible, and in many cases it is not.


Anyway if you read carefully, which of course you don't, I never actually said he was maintaning the status quo with his opinions.

It doesn't matter what you said he said or what I said you said he said (which, anyway, isn't what you said I said you said he said!) - your comments are still a pathetic misuse of political language and a disgrace to any citizen of an even nominally liberal democracy.


wow, what a wonderful feeling of moral correctness. As usual you miss the point yet agian, it is not about you.

Of course it's all about (a) you and (b) your pathetic personal grudges, one of which is aimed at me. For instance the post I am now replying to now contains 12 things that vaguely resemble sentences of which a whole one does not refer to me personally!

I mean, let me have a go at this game: firegoat7 is a waste-of-space frothheaded paranoid para-drugged (or is it real, who knows) pathological armchair hack pseudo-revolutionary faux-intellectual who should have been banned from Australian chess for 15 years for what he did at the Doeberl (for which he has never properly apologised, showing how immature he is) and is the worst debater on this or any other chess bulletin board in the known or any other universe. The previous sentence was not about you at all. How did I go? :P


I can claim whatever I like.

Not logically.


You have too much time on your hands and an unfortunate pre-occupation with comapartive analysis based on abstracting universalising

Called looking at the evidence instead of looking at the drivel inside one's own hateridden skull, dummy.


Look peanut, If you really cared about the junior issue, you would simply allow 3 junior qualifyers into the tournament instead of 1,

Why 3? Too inflexible. Some years ten juniors might deserve a place.


Just think, instead of wasting all that time on championship and olympiad selection you could have been fulfilling a useful function for the ACF instead of re-inventing the wheel, again and again and again.

You're the one reinventing the wheel. I'm the one pointing out to you that the existing one is round, but no matter how many times it runs you over your sad remains lie there whinging "it's a square, it cannot possibly move!"

Garvinator
13-01-2006, 07:37 PM
Gray you r a credit to free thought, but I disagree...Is that ok, we are after all grown up adults..

I think the rating cut off is an unrealistic problem. Do you want to know why?
you can disagree with me if you want, you will be wrong, but feel free to disagree, many have before : p (where are those emoticons and smilies when you really need them). (dont take that seriously : ) ))

Ok now for some serious talk, hopefully without all the trash of previous posts.

I am willing to entertain any ideas that get away from subjective selections. I would love to see a system of qualification that combines ratings, qualification spots etc.

Something I have thought about is that for the states/territories where their champion has already qualified under other rules, the next highest placed person from that state gets a guernsey.

Therefore, for victoria, this would be, David Hacche I believe.

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 07:44 PM
Ah, ...(snip)"

I can't believe I spent 3 minutes reading such dross.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 07:48 PM
I am willing to entertain any ideas that get away from subjective selections. I would love to see a system of qualification that combines ratings, qualification spots etc.


Me too. I want to play in a qualifying tournament in Tasmania just to beat Bonham with the Elephant gambit.



Something I have thought about is that for the states/territories where their champion has already qualified under other rules, the next highest placed person from that state gets a guernsey.

That would be fairer then the current system, but I dislike the closed nature of the state championships...why restrict the talent?

cheers fg7

pax
13-01-2006, 07:52 PM
Something I have thought about is that for the states/territories where their champion has already qualified under other rules, the next highest placed person from that state gets a guernsey.

Therefore, for victoria, this would be, David Hacche I believe.

You want a strict 2150 cutoff, but then you want to automatically qualify an under 2150 player from *every single state*??

And what if the top eight players are all over 2150 - does the 1700 rated guy who finished ninth qualify?

Garvinator
13-01-2006, 08:00 PM
That would be fairer then the current system, but I dislike the closed nature of the state championships...why restrict the talent?
looking at the field that was assembled for the vic championships, I thought it gave a very good guide looking at the results just before as to how one of the lower rated players would go in the australian championship, which would be their next assignment.

Except for Tasmania and ACT, I believe each state uses a round robin, segregated field for their championship. Therefore it would be almost impossible to change the regulations that required swisses to be used. I like debating things that might be able to be improved, but the states/territories arent going to change away from round robins.

Garvinator
13-01-2006, 08:00 PM
You want a strict 2150 cutoff, but then you want to automatically qualify an under 2150 player from *every single state*??

And what if the top eight players are all over 2150 - does the 1700 rated guy who finished ninth qualify?
i didnt say it was perfect or well thought out, that is the point of this thread, isnt it?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2006, 08:09 PM
i didnt say it was perfect or well thought out,Given who started this thread that is abundantly clear.

that is the point of this thread, isnt it?So it would appear.

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 08:11 PM
GG,

I should correct myself here... I believe that closed events are quite good, especially round robins, much better then swiss events.

What I was alluding to is if Tasmanian or Canberra chess want to get better they have to start attracting interstate players i.e not limit their fields to just state players.They also ought to restict numbers.

I would much prefer to see State championships being closed Master events with invited IMS and GMS and qualifying systems that brought in new blood, possibly 4 players each time it was run. Instead of say a swiss with 50 players, have a system like Victoria with 4 tournaments of 12, promotion/relegation etc.

I also believe that instead of relying on rating as a cut off, in regards to the australian championship, you should just select the top 16 from last years events and get the others to qualify through tournament play.

cheers Fg7

P.S Does that help to clarify things?

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 08:25 PM
This has been moved here.


I cannot understand the people that would make a kid like Raymond wait another two years to play in a tournament of this calibre.

Its not personal stupid. Its about the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the selction process.

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
13-01-2006, 08:30 PM
What I was alluding to is if Tasmanian or Canberra chess want to get better they have to start attracting interstate players i.e not limit their fields to just state players.They also ought to restict numbers.
Canberra has quite a few events that attract interstate players, does Doeberl sound familiar, how about ANU Open as well?

Tasmania has a few events during the year that anyone could play in. I believe the Tasmanian Championship is one big swiss too. Therefore you could play in that tournament if you wished David. Should Kevin be reading this as you are coming to the tassie champs this year?



I also believe that instead of relying on rating as a cut off, in regards to the australian championship, you should just select the top 16 from last years events and get the others to qualify through tournament play.

Two years is a long time between drinks. Alot of things can change in that time. I do believe that all players have to demonstrate that they can play to their rating, be it fide or acf, in between the championships. Your idea doesnt include this at this time.


P.S Does that help to clarify things?
a little

firegoat7
13-01-2006, 08:36 PM
Tasmania has a few events during the year that anyone could play in. I believe the Tasmanian Championship is one big swiss too. Therefore you could play in that tournament if you wished David. Should Kevin be reading this as you are coming to the tassie champs this year?



But GG, for elite chess players to travel there has to be motivation (not that I am an elite player)
So for instance wanting to beat Bonbot is not enough motivation. Playing for a spot in the championship just might be. Having said that don't you think that it would be even better if players like Xie and Smerdon were encouraged to play in Tasmania because there were GM norms up for grabs, just like the championship.

To create these tournaments Tasmania chess needs to give up something old for something new. Forget about your individual qualifyer, aim for a collective structure based on participation!

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2006, 08:43 PM
I can't believe I spent 3 minutes reading such dross [sic]

Me neither. Looking up all the words longer than five letters would have taken you much longer than that.


Me too. I want to play in a qualifying tournament in Tasmania just to beat Bonham with the Elephant gambit.

Hahahaha. The last person to try it against me (albeit much weaker than you) said that in future he would still be comfortable playing it against anyone else. Of course, on my worst days I could lose to a player of roughly equal standard playing the Irish Gambit, the Fred or f3/Kf2, but you would be wrong if you expected me to be unprepared for the heffalump or to take it lightly.

I remind you at this point of my standing offer to stake $100 on you not winning the tournament for the Tasmanian Championship, should you compete in it.


What I was alluding to is if Tasmanian or Canberra chess want to get better they have to start attracting interstate players i.e not limit their fields to just state players.They also ought to restict numbers.

Reinventing the wheel again! TCA restricted numbers from 1970 to 1980 and again in 1982 and 1983 but no longer does so. Furthermore your claim is wrong - the Tasmanian Championship tournament is open to interstate and overseas entrants, who are eligible for the prizemoney but not the title. Indeed it is part of the Grand Prix to make it well known that it is open entry-wise. When it was held as round robins there were issues with qualification criteria.

pax
13-01-2006, 08:51 PM
Its not personal stupid. Its about the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the selction process.


Yes, and if the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the (proposed) selection process denies entry to players who are tremendously talented, improving at a very rapid rate, and capable of performing very well in the Championship, then there is something wrong with that process.

firegoat7
15-01-2006, 06:18 PM
Yes, and if the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the (proposed) selection process denies entry to players who are tremendously talented, improving at a very rapid rate, and capable of performing very well in the Championship, then there is something wrong with that process.

I am prepared to read this statement as a middle ground.

At the moment would it be correct to suggest that we both believe that people should be allowed entry to the championship?

If this is the case, and I am presuming it is, how are we so diametrically oppossed in our argument, if we both believe that talented players ought to be given opportunities. As far as I can see, our only difference is, that you believe that "talented juniors" ought to be selected, while I believe that 'talented juniors' ought to play qualifying tournaments with talented adults.

Maybe there is some middle ground in our positions, maybe they are not as mutually exclusive as might be first thought.

cheers Fg7

pax
16-01-2006, 08:38 AM
I am prepared to read this statement as a middle ground.

Wow, an olive branch from fg7 - I am truly honoured!



At the moment would it be correct to suggest that we both believe that people should be allowed entry to the championship?


That's a good start, yes I believe we can agree on that ; )



If this is the case, and I am presuming it is, how are we so diametrically oppossed in our argument, if we both believe that talented players ought to be given opportunities. As far as I can see, our only difference is, that you believe that "talented juniors" ought to be selected, while I believe that 'talented juniors' ought to play qualifying tournaments with talented adults.


I don't think I have ever said that talented and improving Juniors should be selected at the expense of similarly talented and improving adults. My position is this: if you can codify the definition of 'talented and improving', then you could remove the requirement for selectors in the process, which would be a good thing (because it removes all possibility of bias). You could also apply such criteria equally to adults and juniors (juniors are more likely to qualify this way in my view, but it certainly isn't impossible for adults to qualify this way).

Qualifying tournaments is another possibility, but it is fraught with difficulties. You need to be sure that all tournaments meet a minimum standard, as otherwise you can get many qualifiers well below the required standard. You also need to ensure a geographical spread of such tournaments, as otherwise you are making it much easier for players from one area to qualify over another. It would also require a whole new layer of organisation to make it work, and it is unclear to me whether would be enough organisational will to make it work. If you could resolve such difficulties, then yes, I agree qualifying tournaments could work.



Maybe there is some middle ground in our positions, maybe they are not as mutually exclusive as might be first thought.


Indeed perhaps not. Is this a truce then, on this particular matter? No doubt there are some points of difference on the above, but I am willing to let it rest for now.

firegoat7
16-01-2006, 01:01 PM
I don't think I have ever said that talented and improving Juniors should be selected at the expense of similarly talented and improving adults. My position is this: if you can codify the definition of 'talented and improving', then you could remove the requirement for selectors in the process, which would be a good thing (because it removes all possibility of bias).
I think this would be a big step in the right direction compared to what we currently have at present.



You could also apply such criteria equally to adults and juniors (juniors are more likely to qualify this way in my view, but it certainly isn't impossible for adults to qualify this way). At the moment, as things currently stand, adults cannot qualify under this system. This is why a lot of adults have been arguing against the junior bias, suggesting that it is discriminatory- even if it is an indirect discrimination. I also agree with your suggestion that it should be applied equally for juniors and adults.



Qualifying tournaments is another possibility, but it is fraught with difficulties. You need to be sure that all tournaments meet a minimum standard, as otherwise you can get many qualifiers well below the required standard. You also need to ensure a geographical spread of such tournaments, as otherwise you are making it much easier for players from one area to qualify over another. It would also require a whole new layer of organisation to make it work, and it is unclear to me whether would be enough organisational will to make it work. If you could resolve such difficulties, then yes, I agree qualifying tournaments could work.
Again I agree with everything you have said. I would also like to add these points. At some stage in the future,for Australian chess to move ahead, the states have to cede their controlling interest in the ACF, so that the ACF can be run as an autonomous unit with support form the states. Not, as a governing body controlledby state chess administration.

A useful analogy would be Soccer Australia, I think that chess in Australia is suffering from very similar problems that beset soccer before Lowe.

Anyway, for tournament qualification to succeed, ultimately the ACF and the states have to realise that they need to co-operate for the future success of the game at the elite level. In my opinion, for this to work, the ACF needs to develop revenue streams to support a tournament structure at the highest level. To do this it needs to develop a product that it can market and sell to a world wide audience. I believe it has the basis for this product, but it lacks the organising capacity to see it through, which I think is mostly due to its historically archaic structure.

Here is what I would suggest needs to happen.

Every state championship needs to be structured, in tournament format, similar to the Victorian idea of a state championship, i.e closed round robins and then recognised as an elite event on the ACF calender.
I would change any rules regarding foreign, interstate and automatic qualification based on geography of the participant, whilst ensuring that a promotion/relegation system worked for all players, i.e 2 or 3 from previous qualifyers.

I suggest that all state championships at the top ought to be closed masters events, with ACF invited participants and that they ought to go for 2 weeks straight, similar to the Australian Masters. I think you can afford to be more flexible for the other qualifying tournaments. I also believe that they ought to be structured around school holidays to accomodate most players.

What the ACF would have then is at least 7 Master events in Australia of the highest possible standard. At the moment, taking an estimated guess, the costing for this would be about $35,000. But more importantly they would achieve three things.

1) Tournament chess numbers ought to increase, because knowing how competitive chess players are,in a dynamic competitive system almost all of them would give it a go just for the possibilty to play in elite level events. Note you just don't let them play at the very top without making them earn it. In other words you sell chessplayers a realistic dream, provided they work for it.

2) The ACF would actually have a universalised market and product that it could sell to sponsors because every chess player in Australia would be involved in the process. The ACF could, with proper management, show any potential sponsor, that it has a professional circuit and that real people are committed to producing quality chess of an international standard for a global market. The ACF would have something tangible that it could physically show really existed and that it was exciting.

3) The quailty of Australian chess would increase for the participants. Collectively speaking, more IM, GM and FM possibilities would be available since by definition there would be more top end tournaments with accessible promotion/relegation qualification systems. So instead of focussing on the individual chess player, Australian chess could focus on the group. This is why I argue so forcefully against the archaic state system that is in place. The point is not to get 1 person to the elite level as is current practice. The point ought to be to show every player what elite chess is really like, and offer everybody at least some possibility of reaching their maximum potential.

We, in Australian chess, need to recognise that we need a pool of competive 2200 players to produce a 2300 player, a pool of 2100 players to produce a 2200 player , a pool of 2000 players to produce a 2100 player and so on, all the way down to complete beginners. To do that they all need to play each other more, so for example, somebody like me with a 1900 needs to player regular chess against 1900 players from all parts of Australia, going up with good form into the 2000 section and down with poor form into the 1800 section. Not that it can be exactly like that but you get the idea.

In conclusion, Gary Wastell, despite what everybody may or may not think about him, has produced in Victoria, in regards to the state championship, a basic structure that works well. By encouraging active tournament representation Victoria had 1 of the best reserve tournaments ever seen in Australian chess history. With a little tinkering the ACF could also have a similar product that could ensure high quality tournament chess.

All the ACF needs to do is to have the will, be allowed to function without state intervention, and recognise that sponsorship in chess is a chicken and egg argument, in that it does not matter which comes first as long as they both exist. To get quality chess you need a marketable product. To get a marketable product you need quality chess.

cheers Fg7

P.S. By world standards $35,000 is a drop in the ocean, who knows what the ACF could achieve if it got $100,000 or possibly $200,0000. All I know is they won't be able to get a brass razoo without a well thought out coherent plan that aims to generate income from the product.

bobby1972
17-01-2006, 11:13 AM
hey firegoat why worry so much,tell me man you are not going to start this again in 2 years time.who cares its 1 turny every 2 years man .

firegoat7
19-01-2006, 05:18 PM
hey firegoat why worry so much,tell me man you are not going to start this again in 2 years time.who cares its 1 turny every 2 years man . Listen maaannn. Why don't you worry about your own chess and let us non chess players who are interested in chess administration discuss such things, ok?

cheers Fg7