PDA

View Full Version : The culture of selection



Pages : [1] 2

firegoat7
10-11-2005, 10:58 AM
Hello,

Here we go again,another bi-yearly championship with the usual stories.

This is the most recent post from the ACF bulletin.........


"The ACF Council has appointed the Selection Committee for the Australian Championship 2005/2006, comprising Kevin Bonham, Bill Gletsos and Denis Jessop. The committee's function is to decide any questions of eligibility that might arise in relation to entry to the Australian Championship.

Independently of that, the Council has decided that Chris Wallis is to be eligible to play in the Australian Championship on the "improving junior" ground in the By-laws. There is no limit on the number of juniors who may receive such approval so that it is still open to any other junior, who wishes to play and is not otherwise eligible, to apply if they think they are of Australian Championship standard."

- Denis Jessop

The first suprise is ..... why appoint two bots to fill the same position. To suggest that Denis will have an independent voice, when confronting Bill Bonham, makes the selection process a joke. I can not remember a time when BillBot and Bonhambot have ever disagreed with each other on this bulletin board. One wonders how they will ever disagree on the selection panel. I can imagine the arguements, picture this scenario...

Scene: The flowerpot men have to decide between a taleneted adult player who has a rating of 2100, we will call this person Pat Rolrate and a talented junior, whom we will call, Robie Gesiou , just for arguements sake ;) .

Billbot: The adult player has the higher rating
DJ: Maybe we ought to examine their tournament performances
Bonhambot: I don't like children
DJ: Well the adult has performed better recently, but the kid did well at the Canberra open in which he achieved 20/20 against an average rating field of -123.
Bonhambot: Clearly the kid is almost as talented as me!
Billbot: According to my calculation he will be 3rd on the Australian rating list after that one off tournament result.
DJ: But the adult scored 49% against a field of 27 GMs, 123IMS and 253 FMs through the year.[/B]
Bonhambot: Talentless dilletante!, wouldn't even get a pass mark in my lecture subject Snails,Greenies, Labor and Politcs: Biography of a Biologist
Billbot: And he dropped 14 points under the ELO system, but 123 according to my calculations based on the Glicko, with a Billbot factor of warp 10.
DJ: So whats the verdict? Im voting for the adult
Billbot: your a fool Sweeney....(editors note: the actual transcriptions from the meeting had to be edited here due to length...suffice to say that for the next two years Billbot continued with his Vietnam veteran, chopper hallucination, recollections about M.S, and how he "destroyed the N.S.W.C.A, junior chess, language of the human race... etc etc.
Billbot: Thats enough about Matt Sweeney I have banned him from my memory, back to your question Denis, err what was it?
DJ: Im voting for the adult Billbot, what about you two?
Billbot: If you take into consideration my Billbot RD factor of Warp 10 and the fact that 6 Australian rating periods have expired since we bagan this council meeting, then its clear that at this time the junior is rated 0.00001 ahead of the adult in the current rating epoch. So my vote is for Robie
Bonhambot: I'm with B1
Billbot: Good on you B2

cheers Fg7

four four two
10-11-2005, 11:29 AM
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:

Garvinator
10-11-2005, 12:00 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:
better be careful commenting on junior selections, lest you be called a junior hater :(

four four two
10-11-2005, 12:12 PM
I am not a junior hater,but all the junior players I listed are at the same or higher rating as Chris Wallis.
What will happen to the Australian junior championship if half of these juniors qualify for the Australian championship? :hmm: Wont juniors just end up bypassing the Australian junior championship? :hmm: Is this not going to be potentially divisive? :hmm:

Ian Rout
10-11-2005, 12:23 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:
Michael Wei is eligible irrespective of the "promising junior" by-law by virtue of being 2005 ACT Champion. However the last I heard he is not intending to take it up.

shaun
10-11-2005, 01:10 PM
I am not a junior hater,but all the junior players I listed are at the same or higher rating as Chris Wallis.
What will happen to the Australian junior championship if half of these juniors qualify for the Australian championship? :hmm:
Someone else gets a chance to win


Wont juniors just end up bypassing the Australian junior championship? :hmm: And this is bad why?

Is this not going to be potentially divisive? :hmm:
Only to those that see a divide been junior chess and chess (IMHO)

jenni
10-11-2005, 01:41 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:

Junta Ikeda has already made the decision that he prefers to play the Juniors.

Michael Wei will be in China.

Kevin O'Chee and Peter Jovanovic are too old to be eligible to play (apart from the fact that Peter is going to Uni in Europe).

So that leaves Ronald, Vincent and James. There is of course potential for a bit of a keeping up with Jones' effect to happen. I hope it won't and that the majority of juniors will elect to play the Juniors. It should be the premier junior tournament and supported by our strongest kids.

However there is no doubt that selectors and commentators have made clear over the years that results in the adult tournaments are valued more than results in the Aus Juniors, so not surprising that ambitious juniors value them more as well.

I am a bit with Shaun - although I think the Juniors is a great tournament and our family has always supported it over the adult one (they do have another 60 years to play in the adult tournaments), I think it is a choice thing. If Chris and the others are happier playing in a very strong Aus Champs then what does it matter if they choose one over the other? Looking at Chris' results recently it would be hard to argue he is not performing extremely well in Victoria. From there it is just a short step to argueing that the Aus Juniors is too weak for him and that he needs to test himself against the strongest possible players.

bobby1972
10-11-2005, 01:42 PM
Hey firegoat i reckon they should all be allowed in,just remember caisa is waiting for a life long commitment let the psychosis begin early to truly enhance their social skills and who knows maybe a few will and in 20 years or so we can see the fruits of it.

pax
10-11-2005, 02:15 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:

The eligibility of juniors for the Championship should be considered independently of any percieved impact on the junior event. It is not the job of selectors for the Australian Championship to worry about other events - only to determine if the applicants merit a place in the event.

Bear in mind that if Juniors apply for the Australian Championship and are rejected, they may still choose to play in the Major and bypass the Junior. This is their choice to make, not anybody elses.

The impact on the Junior event is something we won't know until all entrants are finalised. If the Junior event has clearly suffered, this might affect whether the two events are run simultaneously in future, but it should not affect the selection process for the Australian Championships.

pballard
10-11-2005, 02:30 PM
Michael Wei is eligible irrespective of the "promising junior" by-law by virtue of being 2005 ACT Champion.

Similarly, James Obst is the 2005 SA champion.

four four two
10-11-2005, 02:36 PM
Pax,Chris Wallis has been offered a place on the basis of being "an improving junior". He hasnt met the criteria of winning a state title,an Australian junior title or being 2150. If he needs to be only "improving" then why have a place for the australian junior champion? :hmm: Wasnt that place in the Australian championship created so as to encourage the better juniors to play in the Australian junior championship? :hmm:

Garvinator
10-11-2005, 02:48 PM
I think the first question that should be asked is: Why is there an improving junior clause?

I would like to know how many juniors that got in under this clause have then automatically qualified (ie over 2150 acf) two years later for the next Australian Championships?

Garvinator
10-11-2005, 02:52 PM
ACT people, who is likely to be nominated if Michael Wei cant play and Junta decides to play the juniors?

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2005, 03:00 PM
firegoat, I appreciate the attempt at humour but alas you're still a goose. Selection for the Aus Champs is not like selection for the Olympiad. There is no limit on the number of entries for the Aus Champs and, in general, applicants do not compete for the same place. Applicants are assessed on their merits and either selected or not selected irrespective of how many other applicants there are.

So if the players are both good enough in our views they will both get in, and if they are both not good enough they won't. This idea about juniors competing with adults for places is total nonsense.

The only instances in which applicants can compete for the same place are:

* A maximum of four players can be admitted under paragraph 3(h) which refers to overseas players rated over 2250 (if not from NZ they must have played 20 ACF-rated games)
* One otherwise ineligible player may be invited under "exceptional circumstances" (paragraph 5).

Of course it is quite remarkable that someone as obsessed with closing off opportunities for improving juniors (and flaming those who support junior chess) as you should stoop to hanging "I don't like children" on someone else just because they are not personally interested in having any.

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2005, 03:08 PM
I think the first question that should be asked is: Why is there an improving junior clause?

I don't think I was on Council when it was first created but I would say the arguments for having it are:

(i) That even the best rating system cannot keep pace with the improvement of the most rapidly-improving strong juniors, so if a junior is over 2000 and improving rapidly there is a good chance they are at least as strong as those adults who are currently admitted by the selectors.

(ii) That it is desirable to expose strong juniors to strong competition, especially in a situation in which nobody else's rights to enter are affected by doing so.


I would like to know how many juniors that got in under this clause have then automatically qualified (ie over 2150 acf) two years later for the next Australian Championships?

I would also be interested to see data on this if anyone has enough records to prepare a full list.

Garvinator
10-11-2005, 03:14 PM
I would also be interested to see data on this if anyone has enough records to prepare a full list.
the list would also have to take into account the rating uplifts in the last few years.

four four two
10-11-2005, 03:29 PM
Kevin,isnt Raymond Song the otherwise ineligible player who has been given a spot in the Australian championship?,or are there 2 spots in total? :hmm:

Kevin,if an adult is a rapidly improving player and they are not a state champion and dont meet the 2150 cut off will they also be eligible to apply realisticly for the Australian championship? :hmm:

jenni
10-11-2005, 03:34 PM
ACT people, who is likely to be nominated if Michael Wei cant play and Junta decides to play the juniors?

Not being on the ACTCA, I am not necessarily up to date with what is happening, but I have not heard of anyone else being put forward.

jenni
10-11-2005, 03:39 PM
I would like to know how many juniors that got in under this clause have then automatically qualified (ie over 2150 acf) two years later for the next Australian Championships?

I think Tomek Rej might have got in via this clause - he's now over 2200 (and not due to any uplift factor).

I believe most juniors and parents are not likely to push themselves forward undeservedly. Most are more likely to feel they are not good enough. The ones that do request it are very likely ones who will be over 2150 in 2 years time.

jenni
10-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Kevin,isnt Raymond Song the otherwise ineligible player who has been given a spot in the Australian championship?,or are there 2 spots in total? :hmm:

:

This is the full text of Bylaw 1

"BY-LAW NO.1

Australian Chess Championship & Australian Major

1. Any other by-law which purports to apply to the Australian Chess Championship
and the Australian Major shall be valid, but any section which is directly or
indirectly inconsistent with this by-law shall, in its application to the
Australian Chess Championship and the Australian Major, have no effect.

Australian Chess Championship

2. General Qualifications. An Australian citizen or a person with permanent
resident status under the Migration Act 1958 (Cwth) who -
a. has an ACF rating, whether provisional or not, on the list current at
the close of entries of at least 2150; or
b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency
is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.

3. Special Qualifications. A person who is not entitled to play in the
Australian Chess Championship under By-law No.1.2 is entitled to play in the
Australian Chess Championship if the person is -
a. the current Australian Champion;
b. the current or immediately previous Australian Junior Champion;
c. the current or immediately previous Australian Women?s Champion;
d. the winner of the previous Australian Major;
e. one person nominated by each State Chess Association, who is, in the
opinion of the ACF Council, ordinarily resident in that State, if that State
would not otherwise have a person in the Australian Chess Championship.
f. a current Champion of a State or Territory that
has an Association which is affiliated with the ACF;
g. a junior (according to FIDE definition) who is improving and is deemed by
the ACF Council to be of sufficient standard;
h. (i) a person, not being an Australian citizen or a person with permanent
resident status under the Migration Act 1958 (Cwth), who has a rating of at
least 2250 on the most recent FIDE rating list and who has played at least
20 ACF-rated games in the two years before entries close for the Australian
Championship; or
(ii) a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who has a rating of at
least 2250 on the most recent FIDE rating list;
provided that the total number of players under this paragraph is not to
exceed four, being the four highest FIDE rated entrants.

4. The ACF Council may decide that a person, who is otherwise eligible under
paragraph h of By-law No.1.3., is ineligible to play in the Australian Chess
Championship on the ground that their FIDE rating materially overstates
their present level of proficiency.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3, a person who is a State or
Territory champion in the year 2000 shall be eligible to play in the 2002
Australian Championship"

5. The ACF Council may, in exceptional circumstances, invite one otherwise
ineligible player to compete in the Australian Chess Championship.

6. The Australian Chess Championship shall be a swiss or (double) round-robin
tournament of at least 11, but no more than 18 rounds.

Australian Major

7. The Australian Major shall be open to all persons who have a current ACF
rating of less than 2150. The Australian Major shall also be open to unrated
players who are deemed to be of a playing strength less than 2150 ACF, and who
are not eligible for the Australian Chess Championship through the provisions in
Section 2.

8. The Australian Major shall be a swiss or round-robin tournament of at least
11, but no more than 18 rounds.

Minor Tournament

9. State Associations or Territory Associations conducting the Australian
Championships on behalf of the ACF are strongly encouraged, but not compelled,
to hold a minor tournament in conjunction with the Championships. An example of
an appropriate minor tournament would be Under 1600."

As can be seen juniors come under 3g and thre are no limits on numbers. Any junior admitted under 3 g does not affect conditions referred to by Kevin, which are 3h and 5.

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2005, 03:56 PM
Kevin,isnt Raymond Song the otherwise ineligible player who has been given a spot in the Australian championship?,or are there 2 spots in total? :hmm:

As pointed out by jenni both Raymond Song and Chris Wallis have been admitted under 3(g). "Otherwise ineligible" means after all the other formalised qualifications have been applied. Clause 5 is sometimes used to avoid the bye.


Kevin,if an adult is a rapidly improving player and they are not a state champion and dont meet the 2150 cut off will they also be eligible to apply realisticly for the Australian championship? :hmm:

Yes, they can apply for inclusion under 2(b). We would have to be satisfied that they were now strong enough to be considered equivalent in strength to a 2150-rated player even though their rating was below that.

More commonly 2(b) just recognises that adult ratings can bob about a bit and someone whose rating bobs around the threshold should be let in even when rated just below it.

Alan Shore
10-11-2005, 08:19 PM
Hello,

Here we go again,another bi-yearly championship with the usual stories.

This is the most recent post from the ACF bulletin.........


"The ACF Council has appointed the Selection Committee for the Australian Championship 2005/2006, comprising Kevin Bonham, Bill Gletsos and Denis Jessop. The committee's function is to decide any questions of eligibility that might arise in relation to entry to the Australian Championship.

Independently of that, the Council has decided that Chris Wallis is to be eligible to play in the Australian Championship on the "improving junior" ground in the By-laws. There is no limit on the number of juniors who may receive such approval so that it is still open to any other junior, who wishes to play and is not otherwise eligible, to apply if they think they are of Australian Championship standard."

- Denis Jessop

The first suprise is ..... why appoint two bots to fill the same position. To suggest that Denis will have an independent voice, when confronting Bill Bonham, makes the selection process a joke. I can not remember a time when BillBot and Bonhambot have ever disagreed with each other on this bulletin board. One wonders how they will ever disagree on the selection panel. I can imagine the arguements, picture this scenario...

Scene: The flowerpot men have to decide between a taleneted adult player who has a rating of 2100, we will call this person Pat Rolrate and a talented junior, whom we will call, Robie Gesiou , just for arguements sake ;) .

Billbot: The adult player has the higher rating
DJ: Maybe we ought to examine their tournament performances
Bonhambot: I don't like children
DJ: Well the adult has performed better recently, but the kid did well at the Canberra open in which he achieved 20/20 against an average rating field of -123.
Bonhambot: Clearly the kid is almost as talented as me!
Billbot: According to my calculation he will be 3rd on the Australian rating list after that one off tournament result.
DJ: But the adult scored 49% against a field of 27 GMs, 123IMS and 253 FMs through the year.[/B]
Bonhambot: Talentless dilletante!, wouldn't even get a pass mark in my lecture subject Snails,Greenies, Labor and Politcs: Biography of a Biologist
Billbot: And he dropped 14 points under the ELO system, but 123 according to my calculations based on the Glicko, with a Billbot factor of warp 10.
DJ: So whats the verdict? Im voting for the adult
Billbot: your a fool Sweeney....(editors note: the actual transcriptions from the meeting had to be edited here due to length...suffice to say that for the next two years Billbot continued with his Vietnam veteran, chopper hallucination, recollections about M.S, and how he "destroyed the N.S.W.C.A, junior chess, language of the human race... etc etc.
Billbot: Thats enough about Matt Sweeney I have banned him from my memory, back to your question Denis, err what was it?
DJ: Im voting for the adult Billbot, what about you two?
Billbot: If you take into consideration my Billbot RD factor of Warp 10 and the fact that 6 Australian rating periods have expired since we bagan this council meeting, then its clear that at this time the junior is rated 0.00001 ahead of the adult in the current rating epoch. So my vote is for Robie
Bonhambot: I'm with B1
Billbot: Good on you B2

cheers Fg7


That post made my day. :clap:

FG7, you are a comic genius!

Oh yeah.. content wise.. um.. why is that clause there anyway? Tell him to come back next year. Otherwise, why have it U2150 at all?

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2005, 11:00 PM
Oh yeah.. content wise.. um.. why is that clause there anyway? Tell him to come back next year. Otherwise, why have it U2150 at all?

Already answered that in my post #15.

Alan Shore
11-11-2005, 12:27 AM
Already answered that in my post #15.

Doesn't glicko implementation remedy that? What year was the clause put in?

Garvinator
11-11-2005, 12:58 AM
Does the 2150 rating cutoff actually mean anything in real terms. Has a player even been refused entry for being 2149 or so?

jenni
11-11-2005, 08:31 AM
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:
Vincent has entered the Juniors, so that only leaves Ronald and James ....

shaun
11-11-2005, 08:42 AM
Does the 2150 rating cutoff actually mean anything in real terms. Has a player even been refused entry for being 2149 or so?

Not that I can recall. In fact one of the traditions of past Australian Championships (70's and 80's) was that the start was delayed while an argument ensued between the state based organisers and the ACF about who should be allowed to play. Often the players concerned were within 50 points of "official" cut-off, and were almsot always let in.

pballard
11-11-2005, 08:59 AM
Not that I can recall. In fact one of the traditions of past Australian Championships (70's and 80's) was that the start was delayed while an argument ensued between the state based organisers and the ACF about who should be allowed to play. Often the players concerned were within 50 points of "official" cut-off, and were almsot always let in.

I assume those bad old days are over and now it's determined beforehand. I can think of two examples from the 80s (I know the names but not the years) of people who turned up expecting to play, only to find they were denied entry to the championship.

four four two
11-11-2005, 09:01 AM
There were a few in the 90's as well. Hacche being one of them. :whistle:

firegoat7
11-11-2005, 10:01 AM
Hello,

Just for arguements sake...what is the source of your information, Jenni? Do you know the date when this information was made available.


This is the full text of Bylaw 1

"BY-LAW NO.1

Australian Chess Championship & Australian Major

1. Any other by-law which purports to apply to the Australian Chess Championship
and the Australian Major shall be valid, but any section which is directly or
indirectly inconsistent with this by-law shall, in its application to the
Australian Chess Championship and the Australian Major, have no effect.

Australian Chess Championship

2. General Qualifications. An Australian citizen or a person with permanent
resident status under the Migration Act 1958 (Cwth) who -
a. has an ACF rating, whether provisional or not, on the list current at
the close of entries of at least 2150; or
b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency
is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.
3. Special Qualifications. A person who is not entitled to play in the
Australian Chess Championship under By-law No.1.2 is entitled to play in the
Australian Chess Championship if the person is -
a. the current Australian Champion;
b. the current or immediately previous Australian Junior Champion;
c. the current or immediately previous Australian Women?s Champion;
d. the winner of the previous Australian Major;
e. one person nominated by each State Chess Association, who is, in the
opinion of the ACF Council, ordinarily resident in that State, if that State
would not otherwise have a person in the Australian Chess Championship.
f. a current Champion of a State or Territory that
has an Association which is affiliated with the ACF;
g. a junior (according to FIDE definition) who is improving and is deemed by
the ACF Council to be of sufficient standard;
h. (i) a person, not being an Australian citizen or a person with permanent
resident status under the Migration Act 1958 (Cwth), who has a rating of at
least 2250 on the most recent FIDE rating list and who has played at least
20 ACF-rated games in the two years before entries close for the Australian
Championship; or
(ii) a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who has a rating of at
least 2250 on the most recent FIDE rating list;
provided that the total number of players under this paragraph is not to
exceed four, being the four highest FIDE rated entrants.
4. The ACF Council may decide that a person, who is otherwise eligible under
paragraph h of By-law No.1.3., is ineligible to play in the Australian Chess
Championship on the ground that their FIDE rating materially overstates
their present level of proficiency.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3, a person who is a State or
Territory champion in the year 2000 shall be eligible to play in the 2002
Australian Championship"
5. The ACF Council may, in exceptional circumstances, invite one otherwise
ineligible player to compete in the Australian Chess Championship.

6. The Australian Chess Championship shall be a swiss or (double) round-robin
tournament of at least 11, but no more than 18 rounds.

Australian Major

7. The Australian Major shall be open to all persons who have a current ACF
rating of less than 2150. The Australian Major shall also be open to unrated
players who are deemed to be of a playing strength less than 2150 ACF, and who
are not eligible for the Australian Chess Championship through the provisions in
Section 2.

8. The Australian Major shall be a swiss or round-robin tournament of at least
11, but no more than 18 rounds.

Minor Tournament

9. State Associations or Territory Associations conducting the Australian
Championships on behalf of the ACF are strongly encouraged, but not compelled,
to hold a minor tournament in conjunction with the Championships. An example of
an appropriate minor tournament would be Under 1600."
As can be seen juniors come under 3g and thre are no limits on numbers. Any junior admitted under 3 g does not affect conditions referred to by Kevin, which are 3h and 5.

Anyway the laws I have highlighted in red need some dating. When were they introduced as official ACF policy? Does the ACF have minutes that prove the historical accuracy of such laws?

The laws in green are very strange....they seem to contradict old laws and look like nothing more then suspicious power abuses. In fact, notice how one of theose laws would probably favour a current selector. Does this mean that Bonham will stand down due to a "conflict of interests"?

cheers Fg7

P.S These laws are very different from previous laws concerning selection for the ACF Championship. Does anybody have a handy copy of the old laws? I know there are some at the club but I can't be bothered going through the paperwork.

jenni
11-11-2005, 11:58 AM
Hello,

Just for arguements sake...what is the source of your information, Jenni? Do you know the date when this information was made available.


.

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/By-law1.txt

It is available to anyone who cares to visit the ACF site. I have been told that any constitutional changes are reflected as soon as feasible on the website.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2005, 02:16 PM
The laws in green are very strange....they seem to contradict old laws and look like nothing more then suspicious power abuses. In fact, notice how one of theose laws would probably favour a current selector. Does this mean that Bonham will stand down due to a "conflict of interests"?

The only thing that's very strange here is your completely irrational babble in which even the most prosaic detail becomes a fountain of suspicion and paranoia. Firstly the rule about 2000 state champs being eligible to play in 2002 no longer has any application. Secondly I was not a 2000 state champion. Thirdly my 2000 state championships had already been held when the motion was passed. Fourthly I am not an applicant for this year's Aus Champs so how would I have conflict of interest anyway?

The background to that rule was that until the rule was changed state champions from the two preceding years could play, so 2000 and 2001 state champs could play in the 2002 title (which started in the last days of 2001). After that rule was changed, only reigning state champions qualified, so 2002 state champions weren't eligible for the 2003-4 event. IIRC the thinking was that a person who was a dethroned state champion had not by that virtue alone earned the right to compete in a national title.


P.S These laws are very different from previous laws concerning selection for the ACF Championship.

Going back how far? I don't recall that much change over the past say 5 years.


Doesn't glicko implementation remedy that?

Not entirely. A very fast improving junior may still be significantly underrated under Glicko (although it does not happen as often as some say.)


What year was the clause put in?

That I also don't know but it has been there in some form throughout this decade.

firegoat7
11-11-2005, 05:41 PM
The only thing that's very strange here is your completely irrational babble in which even the most prosaic detail becomes a fountain of suspicion and paranoia. Firstly the rule about 2000 state champs being eligible to play in 2002 no longer has any application. Secondly I was not a 2000 state champion. Thirdly my 2000 state championships had already been held when the motion was passed. Fourthly I am not an applicant for this year's Aus Champs so how would I have conflict of interest anyway?



It looks like you responded to the "irrational babble', so what does that say about you, Cape barren goosey lucy:owned: Not that anyone on the mainline actually follows or cares about Tasmanian chess. :hand:

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
11-11-2005, 05:48 PM
any danger this thread will not descend into a goat v bonham slanging match. It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.

pax
11-11-2005, 08:31 PM
any danger this thread will not descend into a goat v bonham slanging match. It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.

Ignore the slanging match. How would you like to see the regs?

Garvinator
11-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Ignore the slanging match. How would you like to see the regs?
i dont know yet, but the previous discussions in this thread were proving useful. I am not sure how relevant the 2150 cut off is since there are many ways to get in under it. Also I think it should be higher due to the up lifts.

That is one area.

four four two
12-11-2005, 08:55 AM
The cut off use to be less than 2150,it was raised to 2150 after the ratings rise.The thing you have to remember Garvin is that players below 2200 dont have a "protected" rating, a 2100-2140 player is just as eligibile to lose as many rating points as you. ;)

The key question is should a junior below 2150 have 3 ways to qualify for the Australian championship [australian junior champion/state champion/improving"junior"] when an adult has one[state champion]? :hmm:

firegoat7
12-11-2005, 06:02 PM
It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.

What about these ideas gg.

1) Place an activity clause of 20 games a year for players rated above 2150.
2) Drop the "promising junior clause" completely
3) Ditch state championship qualification
4) Ditch any rule that has any clause "by selection from the ACF"
5) Create a reserve list. Ie Instead of automatically qualifying anybody who does not meet the initial requirements, put them on a reserve list. Get either there peers to vote on their inclusion (those that did qualify) or have a pre-qualifying tournament.

cheers Fg7

shaun
12-11-2005, 06:18 PM
What about these ideas gg.

1) Place an activity clause of 20 games a year for players rated above 2150.
2) Drop the "promising junior clause" completely
3) Ditch state championship qualification
4) Ditch any rule that has any clause "by selection from the ACF"
5) Create a reserve list. Ie Instead of automatically qualifying anybody who does not meet the initial requirements, put them on a reserve list. Get either there peers to vote on their inclusion (those that did qualify) or have a pre-qualifying tournament.

cheers Fg7

Tossing in my 2c

(1) A sensible idea, although attempts at placing minimum activity clauses on Olympiad selections has been met with strong opposition by some eligible players, and a couple of ACF officials. If the intention is to stop players "warehousing" their ratings to maintain eligibility, then maybe just requiring a ! or !! next to their rating is a possible alternative.

(2) No objections from me on this one. Winning the reserves is a big enough challenge for a promising junior as far as I'm concerned.

(3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere.

(4) A well worded clause (or clauses) should both allow the ACF some flexibility in dealing with obvious anomolies, while avoiding giving them free reign to more populist tendencies. So I disagree here.

(5) Reasonable, except for the peer voting selection. If you think the ACF is going to indulge in cronyism, I shudder to think what will happen if this is the alternative. (I assume you meant "disqualifying" btw). Just have the list in order of priority (eg averaged ACF/FIDE ratings) and fill the gaps from the top.

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 01:00 AM
Tossing in my 2c

(1) A sensible idea, although attempts at placing minimum activity clauses on Olympiad selections has been met with strong opposition by some eligible players, and a couple of ACF officials. If the intention is to stop players "warehousing" their ratings to maintain eligibility, then maybe just requiring a ! or !! next to their rating is a possible alternative. would the opponents of this type of activity requirement be the ones who would be the target of the activity requirement. A couple of acf officials is not a majority council decision.


(2) No objections from me on this one. Winning the reserves is a big enough challenge for a promising junior as far as I'm concerned. I whole heartedly agree with this. The two acf selections at the moment are just over 2000 and I think they have been around that mark for a while. It is a long way from 2000 to 2150. This section should be removed.


(3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere. Concur as well


(4) A well worded clause (or clauses) should both allow the ACF some flexibility in dealing with obvious anomolies, while avoiding giving them free reign to more populist tendencies. So I disagree here. agree again.


(5) Reasonable, except for the peer voting selection. If you think the ACF is going to indulge in cronyism, I shudder to think what will happen if this is the alternative. (I assume you meant "disqualifying" btw). Just have the list in order of priority (eg averaged ACF/FIDE ratings) and fill the gaps from the top.
The peer voting part is a bad idea and open to blatant and wide spread rorting. I thought we were trying to keep voting selections down to a complete minimum ie zero?

Instead of having an improving junior clause, maybe there should be a clause where consistent play in the major tournaments around Australia is rewarded. It allows in a player who has done best out of everyone who doesnt qualify from any other criteria.

Of course a few players could be very close in this category and then the acf council decides who is let in. This would then allow more players from the stronger states in, who do have less opportunity to qualify under the current system if they are just under 2150.

I do think though that the 2150 should be raised to 2200 and be STRICTLY ENFORCED as a qualifying barrier. It seems very rubbery at the moment and doesnt really mean much.

jenni
13-11-2005, 11:22 AM
I whole heartedly agree with this. The two acf selections at the moment are just over 2000 and I think they have been around that mark for a while. It is a long way from 2000 to 2150. This section should be removed.

.
Well I am obviously not going to agree with this one. :lol:

Before I rabbit on about juniors, let me say that I agree with some sort of activity criteria - both for the Aus Champs and for Olympiad Selection. If you have a look at other sports, such as Tennis, their ratings decay pretty rapidly if they don't play.

Warning - Juniorphilic stuff from now on. :whistle:

Ray is only 11 - he had a very strong performance in the NSW Championships. Chris is 15 and is putting in some very good back to back performances in Victorian tournaments (which we are told are the strongest in Australia).

While I am not a fan of a deluge of juniors all trying to play the Aus Champs, I think if the ACF is very selective and takes a SMALL number of improving juniors then this can only help Aus chess long term.

It is so hard to find good strong tournaments to play in that to not allow this opportunity to serious juniors is doing a disservice to chess. Remember Juniors grow up incredibly rapidly and are the adults of the future. Compare our situation to Europe where tournaments of this strength are a dime a dozen and all the juniors get opportunities to play in them.

The difference between adults and juniors is that on the whole an adult has found their niche. They might have the potential to be much higher, but realistically if they haven't got there by 30, they are probably not going to, given increasing demands of family and career etc.

While with a junior the sky is the limit and the more opportunities that can be given to them the higher they will go.

I am not a big fan of focusing on a particular junior and giving them everything. Picking winners just doesn't work for me. I would prefer to create an environment where as many as possible are given opportunities. However given that only a few should be let into something like the Aus Champs, it is not unreasonable to pick a few enthusiastic juniors who are demonstrating real potential.

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 11:38 AM
Jenni,

Your argument seems based on the premise that a goal of the Aust Championship is to develop juniors. I think it is too important and held too infrequently to really be abused in this manner.

I'm all for inclusion of juniors who are of sufficient strength but I don't believe that promise and enthusiasm alone are sufficient criteria. Obviously there are many promising and enthusiatic juniors going around and no one can doubt Chris and Raymond's talent. The question though for me is will their inclusing make it a better tournament, not will it provide a good development opportunity for the respective candidates.

I take your point regarding the availability of tournaments of this strength in Australia, so let's not dilute that strength too much. If we want to provide more tournaments with the specific goal of developing juniors then why not hold an Old Masters/New Masters style of tournament with some of the junior development budget rather than use the premier Australian event for that purpose?

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 12:55 PM
I asked this question previously:


I think the first question that should be asked is: Why is there an improving junior clause?

I would like to know how many juniors that got in under this clause have then automatically qualified (ie over 2150 acf) two years later for the next Australian Championships?

and got an answer of one player Tomek Rej. Not a convincing argument for having the criteria.

I guess part of the reason I want the criteria about improving juniors dropped is that the entry to the australian championships should be decided on the rating you have at the time of final entries, not on a rating you could have in two years time.

jenni
13-11-2005, 02:49 PM
I asked this question previously:



and got an answer of one player Tomek Rej. Not a convincing argument for having the criteria.

.

Is it your assumption your that heaps of juniors are using it? - I have to admit to not taking too much notice of what juniors are using it, but given my interest in juniors, I am sure I could recall lots of juniors if it was being (ab) used extensively. Tomek is the one I can recall off hand - and he might even have been there via the Aus Junior champsion route. Ronald Yu I think was another one and had a FIDE of 2265 at the time. He hasn't progressed to over 2150 ACF at the moment, but is in year 12, so not that much chess over the last 18 months.

Maybe someone who does have access to records, could let us know what juniors have been let in, and then we can examine their progress.

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 03:04 PM
Is it your assumption your that heaps of juniors are using it? - I have to admit to not taking too much notice of what juniors are using it, but given my interest in juniors, I am sure I could recall lots of juniors if it was being (ab) used extensively. Tomek is the one I can recall off hand - and he might even have been there via the Aus Junior champsion route. Ronald Yu I think was another one and had a FIDE of 2265 at the time. He hasn't progressed to over 2150 ACF at the moment, but is in year 12, so not that much chess over the last 18 months.

Maybe someone who does have access to records, could let us know what juniors have been let in, and then we can examine their progress.

Now you are arguing that it has not been abused and therefore it should stay. But there is a case to be made for removing the clause if there exists the possibility of it being abused.

Really I don't care much one way or the other provided the checks are there to ensure that only suitably strong juniors are able to get through. However in this day of high activity and glicko rating system I though think that the case for a junior to make that they are patently over 2150 playing strength and yet under 2150 rating has become increasing more difficult. Therefore why have a superfluous clause?

I do reiterate though that viewing the Australian Championship as a junior development opportunity is an undersell.

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:07 PM
Jenni,

Your argument seems based on the premise that a goal of the Aust Championship is to develop juniors. I think it is too important and held too infrequently to really be abused in this manner.

I'm all for inclusion of juniors who are of sufficient strength but I don't believe that promise and enthusiasm alone are sufficient criteria. Obviously there are many promising and enthusiatic juniors going around and no one can doubt Chris and Raymond's talent. The question though for me is will their inclusing make it a better tournament, not will it provide a good development opportunity for the respective candidates.

I think if 6 or 7 juniors were let in it would be an abuse. To let in 1 or 2 is part of chess development which should be important to all. Everyone rabbits on about who Australia's next GM will be. Without giving juniors opportunities like this we will never get another GM.

It is interesting that someone like Ian, who one would think would have a vested interest in protecting this tournament, is someone who seems to support a few juniors being let in who are of the correct standard.

I don't believe that the Aus champsionships is there to develop juniors - I do believe that in a chess poor country like Australia we have to take all the opportunities we can, because there just aren't very many.



I take your point regarding the availability of tournaments of this strength in Australia, so let's not dilute that strength too much. .

Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. 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. :owned:



If we want to provide more tournaments with the specific goal of developing juniors then why not hold an Old Masters/New Masters style of tournament with some of the junior development budget rather than use the premier Australian event for that purpose.

This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:15 PM
Now you are arguing that it has not been abused and therefore it should stay. But there is a case to be made for removing the clause if there exists the possibility of it being abused.

Really I don't care much one way or the other provided the checks are there to ensure that only suitably strong juniors are able to get through. However in this day of high activity and glicko rating system I though think that the case for a junior to make that they are patently over 2150 playing strength and yet under 2150 rating has become increasing more difficult. Therefore why have a superfluous clause?

I do reiterate though that viewing the Australian Championship as a junior development opportunity is an undersell.

Yes I don't believe it has been abused and if anyone can give the stats on the Aus Champs where it has been used maybe we can see. I would be amazed if it was ever used by more than a very few juniors in any tournament.

I don't think it is there because juniors are agueing that they are under rated. I think it is there quite deliberately to pick a few juniors who have blue sky potential and enable them to reach it because they get to play in a strong tournament.

i.e. it is not that they are already at 2150 strength and it is not reflected in the rating system (although this might be true as well - with juniors the rating system is often trailing their strength), but more that they are at over 2000 and rising rapidly and this tournament can help push them along even more.

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:19 PM
Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. 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. :owned:
I have also said that maybe there should be an uplift to 2200, taking into account the rating uplifts of recent years. The borderline adults should also be heavily scrutinised before being entered.

Regarding your bet offer, i would like to see the final field first :whistle:


This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.
I would actually be willing to run it. But three questions arise:
1) Do you really want me organising/ running a junior tournament ;)
2) How could this be done in the current climate?
3) How many players are really going to come to somewhere in the greater south east Brisbane area for a tournament like this if huge amounts of money isnt offered?


My main point of all this is that I am just looking at all the criteria that players can get in under and seeing if all are required. I would like to see optional selections have less influence on who actually gets a run in the australian championships.

Alan Shore
13-11-2005, 03:21 PM
Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. 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. :owned:

I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:



28 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 3
29 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 2
30 Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 1

Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place? :owned:

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:24 PM
I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:



28 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 3
29 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 2
30 Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 1

Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place? :owned:
considering my previous comments in the fide title envy thread, i was not going to head in this direction ;) one area at a time thanks :uhoh: the only thing i would say is, see Jenni is right, all adults :P

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:25 PM
I've just had a look at the Aus Champs in 2004 in Adelaide. Peter Jovanovic played as ACT Champion, coming in with a score of 5/11, the same as Tim Reilly.

Tomek Rej scored 5.5, along with Darryl Joahnsen, Depasquale, George Xie, Canfell etc.

Ronald Yu scored 6 coming =8th - so I am really not seeing much dilution or weakness there?

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:28 PM
I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:



28 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 3
29 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 2
30 Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 1

Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place? :owned:

You are not going to stir me. :lol: I am the one who catches flak because I maintain the women need nurturing and special programs.......

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:30 PM
considering my previous comments in the fide title envy thread, i was not going to head in this direction ;) one area at a time thanks :uhoh: the only thing i would say is, see Jenni is right, all adults :P
I have never maintained that female players are as strong as male - quite the opposite. I objected to a female being rubbished as being too weak to deserve a title that she had won fairly. A totally different issue.

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 03:32 PM
I think if 6 or 7 juniors were let in it would be an abuse. To let in 1 or 2 is part of chess development which should be important to all. Everyone rabbits on about who Australia's next GM will be. Without giving juniors opportunities like this we will never get another GM.

This is patently false there have been two GMs and will be more, with or without the junior admission clause to the Aust Champs. I assume you were just being rhetorical.


It is interesting that someone like Ian, who one would think would have a vested interest in protecting this tournament, is someone who seems to support a few juniors being let in who are of the correct standard.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Ian Rogers. However, I'd prefer if he expressed it himself rather than you making an appeal to authority. Note also that being an authority on playing chess does not make Ian's opinion on the running on the Australian Championship sacrosanct.


I don't believe that the Aus champsionships is there to develop juniors - I do believe that in a chess poor country like Australia we have to take all the opportunities we can, because there just aren't very many.

Neither are the opportunities many for a tournament of this kind for all elite players. If there are more applicants than spots then someone must miss out. I see no reason to favour juniors in particular for this tournament.


Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. 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. :owned:

Since there is unlikely to be more than 2 juniours playing in a much larger field I'd give you better than even chance that someone else will do worse. This is hardly promoting your case though.


This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. You were the one looking for junior development opportunities not me. I just said that the Australian Championship should not be prostituted to this end. I was offering you a suggestion which enabled you to improve your perceived problem. I can't see that an offer to run such a tournament was even vaguely implied by my suggestion.

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:34 PM
Regarding your bet offer, i would like to see the final field first :whistle:
.
That's OK - I can wait.


My main point of all this is that I am just looking at all the criteria that players can get in under and seeing if all are required. I would like to see optional selections have less influence on who actually gets a run in the australian championships

I don't object to most of your suggestions, but I think having a few safety nets (which is all most of them are), is not a bad idea. If there were a fixed number of places, then it would be a problem. With a swiss adding in a couple of extra is just not an issue. If the juniors (for e.g.) are too weak then they can hover at the bottom and play the females. :whistle:

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 03:40 PM
Yes I don't believe it has been abused and if anyone can give the stats on the Aus Champs where it has been used maybe we can see. I would be amazed if it was ever used by more than a very few juniors in any tournament.

Whether or not it was abused in the past is irrelevent if it might be abused in the future. The abuse too is dependant on your opinin of the goal of the Australian Championship (see below).


I don't think it is there because juniors are agueing that they are under rated. I think it is there quite deliberately to pick a few juniors who have blue sky potential and enable them to reach it because they get to play in a strong tournament.

It would seem to be really too infrequent to make much of a difference in this regard. It is only one 11 round tournament in 2 years.


i.e. it is not that they are already at 2150 strength and it is not reflected in the rating system (although this might be true as well - with juniors the rating system is often trailing their strength), but more that they are at over 2000 and rising rapidly and this tournament can help push them along even more.

It is here I guess we have a difference of philosophy. Can't see it is really necessary to use the Australian Championship in this way. As I said before it occurs too infrequently to really be of much use and by allowing one or two juniors you are disallowing one or two other candidates who might be stronger. I don't see why there should be a junior specific clause at all. Let all players apply based on merit irrespective of age.

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:42 PM
This is patently false there have been two GMs and will be more, with or without the junior admission clause to the Aust Champs. I assume you were just being rhetorical.
Not rhetorical - dramatic is closer.




Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Ian Rogers. However, I'd prefer if he expressed it himself rather than you making an appeal to authority. Note also that being an authority on playing chess does not make Ian's opinion on the running on the Australian Championship sacrosanct.

The point I am trying to make is that if anyone should feel the need to exclude "weak" players, it should be the strong players. However in my experience they are often the ones to promote the juniors and encourage them to enter comps like the Aus Champs and the Zonals.




Neither are the opportunities many for a tournament of this kind for all elite players. If there are more applicants than spots then someone must miss out. I see no reason to favour juniors in particular for this tournament.


Is this true ?- I didn't think there was an set limit, although I am sure there must be some sort of "ideal" figure.



You seem to have a comprehension problem. You were the one looking for junior development opportunities not me. I just said that the Australian Championship should not be prostituted to this end. I was offering you a suggestion which enabled you to improve your perceived problem. I can't see that an offer to run such a tournament was even vaguely implied by my suggestion.

Careful Barry - you are being abusive again. How many more people do you want to drive away? I would have thought Libby was enough for one week. :lol:

I said your suggestion was a good idea - just trying to point out the practical problems. Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:42 PM
That's OK - I can wait. even if you couldnt wait, you dont have any choice ;)



I don't object to most of your suggestions, but I think having a few safety nets (which is all most of them are), is not a bad idea. If there were a fixed number of places, then it would be a problem. With a swiss adding in a couple of extra is just not an issue. If the juniors (for e.g.) are too weak then they can hover at the bottom and play the females. :whistle:
I think the only suggestion I made was raising the rating limit :uhoh: the rest were just some questions to get more information.

I havent actually said anything about the women's champion clause because it can be won by someone above 2150/2200 if they actually played in the Australian open.

Is there going to be a women's champion representative for this Australian championship, as there wasnt a women's champion awarded at the last Australian open.

The current regulation is:


c. the current or immediately previous Australian Women?s Champion;

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:44 PM
As I said before it occurs too infrequently to really be of much use and by allowing one or two juniors you are disallowing one or two other candidates who might be stronger.
.

Can someone tell us if this is true? I don't believe so, as my understanding is there is not a fixed number of spots?

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Can someone tell us if this is true? I don't believe so, as my understanding is there is not a fixed number of spots?
there is no fixed number at all. If 128 players meet the criteria and entered, the field would be 128 in size. Same if there were only 6.

firegoat7
13-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Tossing in my 2c


(3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere.



I basically accept that there ought to be spots for state champions, but I do not believe that weak state championships ought to qualify. If the ACF is serious about retaining these clauses then it ought to open up the whole championship structure. For instance, I am suggesting that it would be better for some states if they made thir championships open to stronger players from interstate, (even if they do not live in that state). The tournaments ought to be both open and eligible for the winner to progress into Oz championships, even if the winner does not live in that state.



(5) Reasonable, except for the peer voting selection. If you think the ACF is going to indulge in cronyism, I shudder to think what will happen if this is the alternative. (I assume you meant "disqualifying" btw). Just have the list in order of priority (eg averaged ACF/FIDE ratings) and fill the gaps from the top.

Personally I am not in favor of anybody selecting another player because I find this method selective. However, I would rather see spots decided by peers instead of selectors who, quite simply, do not really understand what chess strength is.

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:46 PM
I would actually be willing to run it. But three questions arise:
1) Do you really want me organising/ running a junior tournament ;)
2) How could this be done in the current climate?
3) How many players are really going to come to somewhere in the greater south east Brisbane area for a tournament like this if huge amounts of money isnt offered?
these questions seemed to have been missed, either deliberately or by mistake :(

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:48 PM
Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.
this comment begs to be made- if you are relying on the guru to come to your rescue, you must be struggling :P :P :P ;) :cool:

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:49 PM
these questions seemed to have been missed, either deliberately or by mistake :(

But Garvin you were being so negative that I didn't dare reply - maybe we can talk about it in Brisbane. :)

jenni
13-11-2005, 03:51 PM
there is no fixed number at all. If 128 players meet the criteria and entered, the field would be 128 in size. Same if there were only 6.

So in other word, adding 2 juniors in, does not disqualify worthier adults.....

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:53 PM
But Garvin you were being so negative that I didn't dare reply - maybe we can talk about it in Brisbane. :)
sure, i am only playing in the minor, maybe or nothing at all. Not sure. But i will be around somewhere at some stage, but more likely in the afternoon ;)

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 03:53 PM
So in other word, adding 2 juniors in, does not disqualify worthier adults.....
correct

Alan Shore
13-11-2005, 03:56 PM
You are not going to stir me. :lol: I am the one who catches flak because I maintain the women need nurturing and special programs.......

OK, perhaps AC was onto something.. should we give them queen starts?

(lol, troll)

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 04:03 PM
The point I am trying to make is that if anyone should feel the need to exclude "weak" players, it should be the strong players. However in my experience they are often the ones to promote the juniors and encourage them to enter comps like the Aus Champs and the Zonals.

There are more thana few problems with your way of shownig this. Firstly you were rendering the opinino of anther poster who would be better served expressing that opinion first hand. Further one could argue that the stronger players may have vested interest in promoting such players. Finally, as I pointde out the opinion of the elite players are important but an ability to play chess does not necessarily equate to an ability to govern chess.

I would value hearing Ian's opinion, because of his experience not playing ability, but would appreciate hearing it first hand.


Is this true ?- I didn't think there was an set limit, although I am sure there must be some sort of "ideal" figure.

Whether or not there is an hard limit or a soft limit the same argument applies.


Careful Barry - you are being abusive again. How many more people do you want to drive away? I would have thought Libby was enough for one week. :lol:

That's not funny. I feel terrible about that, as you know. I thought you were being abusive to me and so I responded. This is the same thnig that got me into trouble with Libby.


I said your suggestion was a good idea - just trying to point out the practical problems. Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.

I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made. ;)

Seriously though I see the problem is that such a tournament would have to lose money so would need sponsorship either from the ACF or a philanthropic benefactor. Should such funds become available then it should be considered but I think you need a more elite event than the Ergas tourny in Melbourne. Perhaps you could run it as two events with elite players and top squad members in the A event and weaker adults and the bottom half of the squad in the other. Perhaps not run at the same time. If it was run this way I would hope you would get the top squad players valuing the event and bothing to turn up.

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 04:07 PM
correct

Fair enough. But providing junior with a specific entry clause still means they may be selected to play ahead of potentially more worth adults who don't meet the normal selection criteria and are refused entry based on the junior specific clause by reason of age.

jenni
13-11-2005, 04:17 PM
I would value hearing Ian's opinion, because of his experience not playing ability, but would appreciate hearing it first hand.


Ian reads the BB all the time but doesn't post often (sensible man).




Whether or not there is an hard limit or a soft limit the same argument applies.



Umm - doesn't seem to for me. If 40 over 2150 people apply and all get in and then a couple of juniors get let in under a special clause, how is anyone losing out. There is nothing in bylaw 1 that would allow a few extra adults in if the juniors didn't get in.



That's not funny. I feel terrible about that, as you know. I thought you were being abusive to me and so I responded. This is the same thnig that got me into trouble with Libby.


I think you are getting over sensitive. When I want to be nasty I am usually fairly blunt. Are you offering is hardly at the mean end of comments.




I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made. ;)

Seriously though I see the problem is that such a tournament would have to lose money so would need sponsorship either from the ACF or a philanthropic benefactor. Should such funds become available then it should be considered but I think you need a more elite event than the Ergas tourny in Melbourne. Perhaps you could run it as two events with elite players and top squad members in the A event and weaker adults and the bottom half of the squad in the other. Perhaps not run at the same time. If it was run this way I would hope you would get the top squad players valuing the event and bothing to turn up.

Agreed - it would need a lot of sponsorship in order to attract the elite adults.

I wasn't suggesting it should be like the Ergas, or even part of the Ergas Camp which is very much a young development squad idea. A couple of years ago I combined the Young Masters and NECG and while that allowed me to do two things for the price of one, it had a lot of problems. (Mainly the weaker kids being resentful at being excluded from the stronger tournaments).

So running as two parallel tournaments is not really a good idea.

Anyone we are indulging in the dreaded thread drift and probably should stop. I will tuck this idea away for a time when money and organisers permit.

firegoat7
13-11-2005, 04:31 PM
I think if 6 or 7 juniors were let in it would be an abuse. To let in 1 or 2 is part of chess development which should be important to all. Everyone rabbits on about who Australia's next GM will be. Without giving juniors opportunities like this we will never get another GM.


Well the problem with this statement is that it is empirically false.Let us look at the facts, but let me state this disclaimer first- I believe that Raymond Song and Chris Wallis are both capable of doing well in the Australian championship.

Nevertheless, the ACF has now made an exception by allowing in the 10th rated Australain junior (chris) to play. Clearly then Jenni ,the other 8 juniors above him including (Raymond has also been made into an exception), now have grounds to play should they so desire.In fact who could prevent them from playing, now that a standard has been met.

As for your GM arguement, well it is quite frankly bollocks. The role of the ACF ought not to be to produce elite players at everyone elses expense, the role of the ACF ought to be to be to provide the strongest tournament scene possible. To do that it has to be fair.



It is interesting that someone like Ian, who one would think would have a vested interest in protecting this tournament, is someone who seems to support a few juniors being let in who are of the correct standard.
I find nothing interesting about this [his] position at all. In fact if I was really cynical I could say a lot about this/[his] preference for juniors over adult players, but then again this might misrepresent the/his position because, he did not say anything to us, we only have you as a source on which to base these claims.Hardly authorative.



I don't believe that the Aus champsionships is there to develop juniors - I do believe that in a chess poor country like Australia we have to take all the opportunities we can, because there just aren't very many.

Nonsense. This country has some fantastic chess and believe it or not juniors ought to earn their spots by playing in some of the fantastic opportunities on offer.



Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. 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. :owned:

You are full of it. But for what it is worth I will take you on. I challenge any junior in your beloved state to beat me in a match. You put up $500 and I will put up $500...winner takes all over 6 games. There is your money on the line! :owned:

Nevertheless, even though your arguement is just plain nonsense, I better point out the reasons why. Nobody is claiming that there is much difference between a 2000 adult and a 2000 junior, give or take 100 points. What they will say is this, given the opportunity they will both probably make about the same sort of scores.

However, that is not the issue is it? The issue is fairness, it is about what is morally correct. Let us look at what the talented junior player can play in. State junior titles, Australian junior titles, Asian junior title and World junior titles...including every event an adult can play in based on rating.

If we can compare adult possibilities we see....no junior championship opportunity at a state,national, regional and international level. Tournaments, by the way which can often be IM and GM events.

So who is the one really being prejudiced here? Those who say that juniors (with the already notable exception of Australian junior champions) ought to play in the Oz champs, simply because they are juniors or those that say make them qualify like everyone else?

Maybe your views are part of the problem with junior burn-out. Maybe your views are the reasons why Australia's 2000-2200 pool of players is so out of whack with International standards. :hmm: Maybe, idiots like you who suggest 2150 players "are diluting the strength', have no real understanding of what is required to produce a Grandmaster, let alone a thriving competitive chess environment. :evil:



I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.
Atually :doh: , most of dem, whoever dey r, probably enjoy the challenge and believe it or not, unlike yourself, who is so obviously ageist, like to play chess with chess players as opposed to the pathetic self centered mis-construction you misrepresent them to be. Quite simply, you need to grow up and start to understand that the Australian championships are not day care centres modelled on your Canberra State championship experiences.

firegoat7
13-11-2005, 04:45 PM
The difference between adults and juniors is that on the whole an adult has found their niche. They might have the potential to be much higher, but realistically if they haven't got there by 30, they are probably not going to, given increasing demands of family and career etc.

While with a junior the sky is the limit and the more opportunities that can be given to them the higher they will go.



These statements are naive in the extreme. Let me start by saying this- age is no barrier to learning. Secondly, Andrew Bird (ok he is in his 20s) clearly refutes the nonsense you have just espoused, but notice if he had finished second in the N.S.W championship, you would not push for him to get into the Australian championship, even though it would have still been a fantastic performance by an adult, but if he was a junior you would say...he is sooooo talented..well, yes he is, but guess what, he learnt chess as an adult. :owned: Talent is not restricted to age :hmm:

As for the sky being the limit, bollocks. Chess is littered with the broken dreams of juniors who never made it to the elite level, despite dominating their own peers when younger. Just remember the talentless adult Maurice Ashley became a Grandmaster while the talented junior Josh Waitzkin, didn't know how to defend against an attack on his king. No bad when you consider that Ashley and Waitzkin came from similar competitive circles ie. New York Chess.

cheers Fg7

Rincewind
13-11-2005, 04:52 PM
Ian reads the BB all the time but doesn't post often (sensible man).

Perhaps but he does post. Probably doesn't want to get embroiled in a flamewar the way I love to. :rolleyes:


Umm - doesn't seem to for me. If 40 over 2150 people apply and all get in and then a couple of juniors get let in under a special clause, how is anyone losing out. There is nothing in bylaw 1 that would allow a few extra adults in if the juniors didn't get in.

True I accept this point but there still is an inequity as I mention in my reply to Garvin.


I think you are getting over sensitive. When I want to be nasty I am usually fairly blunt. Are you offering is hardly at the mean end of comments.

Hey, I'm a very sensitive guy. Ask anyone. Belthasur thinks I'm a girl, Libby and you think I'm a Vic junior, (lord knows what the guru thinks I am but I have a few ideas) and in reality I'm miles from all those things. I just like the debate. :) However there was an negative connotation to your comment which I took offense to, and hence my reaction. But I do conceed your comment was mild than many that I've been subjected to over the years.

jenni
13-11-2005, 05:15 PM
I'm out of this - now the goat is back it will all get ultra mean and silly. :)

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 05:24 PM
I'm out of this - now the goat is back it will all get ultra mean and silly. :)
you could put him on ignore, so you dont see his posts :confused:

jenni
13-11-2005, 07:35 PM
you could put him on ignore, so you dont see his posts :confused:

I like to see his posts, but not reply to them. Sometimes he even makes sense...

Garvinator
13-11-2005, 07:51 PM
I like to see his posts, but not reply to them. Sometimes he even makes sense...
:eek: :eek:

ursogr8
13-11-2005, 09:07 PM
I like to see his posts, but not reply to them. Sometimes he even makes sense...


:clap: :clap:
and sometimes
:confused: :confused:

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2005, 11:26 PM
It looks like you responded to the "irrational babble', so what does that say about you,

It says that I realise that someone not in full posession of the relevant facts might still fall for it and it is therefore worth pointing out that it is false - on this score I note your complete capitulation.


Not that anyone on the mainline actually follows or cares about Tasmanian chess. :hand:

Untrue. One of your clubmates requested that I post more Tasmanian news on this site.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2005, 11:55 PM
Nevertheless, the ACF has now made an exception by allowing in the 10th rated Australain junior (chris) to play. Clearly then Jenni ,the other 8 juniors above him including (Raymond has also been made into an exception), now have grounds to play should they so desire.In fact who could prevent them from playing, now that a standard has been met.

The above does not necessarily follow. If these other juniors applied we would need to rule on them based not purely on their rating but also whether we considered them to be improving.

A few pages back Garvin commented on Song and Wallis having been around 2000 for some time. It might be worth checking the ratings progress of players (see the Improved Presentation thread in the Ratings Arena). Wallis only passed 2000 in the Sep 2005 ratings list. He improved by over 500 points (!!) in the four ratings periods in 2004, and although his gain since has been much slower he has kept increasing. Raymond Song improved by around 200 points in 2004 and broke 2000 in the first ratings period in 2005. His curve has also flattened out significantly this year but he has continued to gain.

Garvinator
14-11-2005, 12:34 AM
A few pages back Garvin commented on Song and Wallis having been around 2000 for some time. It might be worth checking the ratings progress of players (see the Improved Presentation thread in the Ratings Arena). Wallis only passed 2000 in the Sep 2005 ratings list. He improved by over 500 points (!!) in the four ratings periods in 2004, and although his gain since has been much slower he has kept increasing. Raymond Song improved by around 200 points in 2004 and broke 2000 in the first ratings period in 2005. His curve has also flattened out significantly this year but he has continued to gain.
Both of these stats show that neither of these players have been consistently performing at a rating of 2150 and above.

Garvinator
14-11-2005, 01:05 AM
Ronald Yu scored 6 coming =8th - so I am really not seeing much dilution or weakness there?
Hello Jenni,

Thanks to Kevin I have had a look at Ronald's progress since the last Australian Championship and his rating has actually gone down.

I understand this can be caused by many away from the board reasons. My point is that this counteracts your point about the junior regulation.

I still believe the rating cutoff should be 2200, there be an activity requirement and also the improving junior regulation should be tossed.

pax
14-11-2005, 07:58 AM
I don't understand why people are so keen to change regulations that cause no problems whatsoever.

I could understand the complaints if the junior clause was denying a place to another player. They don't.

I could understand the complaints if the quality of the tournament was being diluted. It clearly isn't. Two or three players who will probably do quite well are hardly going to dilute the event. Does anyone believe that Moulthun Ly (for example) will not be a most formidable opponent for anyone in the tournament? What if he hadn't won the Australian Junior on countback last year - should he be excluded?

The only thing I would say about this regulation is that you could probably codify it a little more precisely. For example:

-Any player, rated over 2000 on the October rating list (or whichever rating list is appropriate), and whose rating has increased my more than 200 points in the previous two years.

If it is codified in such a way, there would be no need to specifically exclude adults from the provision.

pax
14-11-2005, 08:09 AM
Hello Jenni,

Thanks to Kevin I have had a look at Ronald's progress since the last Australian Championship and his rating has actually gone down.


So? Her point was that he performed extremely well in the tournament, and was clearly at the appropriate playing level at the time.



I understand this can be caused by many away from the board reasons. My point is that this counteracts your point about the junior regulation.


Rubbish, it does no such thing. Nobody has suggested that juniors admitted under the clause would *necessarily* meet the rating criteria for the following event. Just that they are clearly not out of their depth in such an event, and they can *potentially* benefit a great deal out of participation.



I still believe the rating cutoff should be 2200, there be an activity requirement and also the improving junior regulation should be tossed.

So you are actually proposing a much smaller tournament. For an 11 round Swiss, 30 players is just about ideal. Under your proposals, the number of players would probably be much lower (only 31 players in the country currently meet the rating qualification), making for more absurd pairings in the last few rounds.

pax
14-11-2005, 08:17 AM
As for the sky being the limit, bollocks. Chess is littered with the broken dreams of juniors who never made it to the elite level, despite dominating their own peers when younger. Just remember the talentless adult Maurice Ashley became a Grandmaster while the talented junior Josh Waitzkin, didn't know how to defend against an attack on his king. No bad when you consider that Ashley and Waitzkin came from similar competitive circles ie. New York Chess.

cheers Fg7

Great, you can name one GM who learned chess as an adult. I can name a hundred who made their greatest strides in their teens.

Not all top Juniors make it to GM, but nearly every top GM made their greatest improvements in their teens or ealy twenties.

Rincewind
14-11-2005, 08:55 AM
The only thing I would say about this regulation is that you could probably codify it a little more precisely. For example:

-Any player, rated over 2000 on the October rating list (or whichever rating list is appropriate), and whose rating has increased my more than 200 points in the previous two years.

If it is codified in such a way, there would be no need to specifically exclude adults from the provision.

I think this is a good idea. I especially agree with your last sentence. Although the details might need tweeking I'm all in favour of transparency.

jenni
14-11-2005, 09:45 AM
Hello Jenni,

Thanks to Kevin I have had a look at Ronald's progress since the last Australian Championship and his rating has actually gone down.

I understand this can be caused by many away from the board reasons. My point is that this counteracts your point about the junior regulation.

I still believe the rating cutoff should be 2200, there be an activity requirement and also the improving junior regulation should be tossed.

Yes - maybe the fact that he is year 12 and hasn't played much chess has something to do with it? Unlike ACT kids who have a friendlier UAI system (and who are perhaps not quite as neurotic about ultra high UAI's), NSW kids (including Zong-Yuan Zhao) take a break from chess in year 11 and 12. Ronald came =8th in the Aus Champs - how could anyone argue that he wasn't deserving of a place?

As far as Ray goes, it is normal to see a small plateau effect in kids of his age - this is added to by the fact that he took nearly 6 months off chess this year for selective school exams. I have no doubt we will see Ray on an upward climb next year.

I agree with you about activity, don't even mind 2200, but I see no harm in one or two talented juniors being added..... We might just have to agree to disagree on that one. :)

jenni
14-11-2005, 09:48 AM
The only thing I would say about this regulation is that you could probably codify it a little more precisely. For example:

-Any player, rated over 2000 on the October rating list (or whichever rating list is appropriate), and whose rating has increased my more than 200 points in the previous two years.

If it is codified in such a way, there would be no need to specifically exclude adults from the provision.
Fine by me - I have no problem with any improving player being included. :clap:

jenni
14-11-2005, 09:55 AM
I challenge any junior in your beloved state to beat me in a match. You put up $500 and I will put up $500...winner takes all over 6 games. There is your money on the line! :owned:
.
Firstly my arguements have been for Australian Juniors not ACT juniors - the ACT in fact has put no junior forward although we have arguable cases for a number of them. However you have become so anti ACT you can't help dragging it in all the time.

I could probably find at least 6 ACT Juniors who I would be totally confident of beating you in any match, however I would never put a Junior into a grudge match, just to satisfy my own ego.

I will make another offer though. It has been half a decade since we have seen you at Doeberl - I'll pay your entry to the Premier if you would like to come and play next Easter. We might even be able to find you some accommodation if you can't afford that. (I'd even pay it myself). There are plenty of Juniors and even ACT juniors who play in that.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 11:48 AM
Both of these stats show that neither of these players have been consistently performing at a rating of 2150 and above.

I don't have those stats in front of me for Song but for Wallis I can tell you that while he has not yet returned a PR of over 2150 in any ratings period, his PR for the current ratings period is very close to that level. (Indeed he performed well over that level in two tournaments but had a shocker in a third.) Also the performances of fast-improving juniors are often against other fast-improving juniors who may be slightly underrated at any given time.

Andrew Bird was mentioned by firegoat as an example of adult improvement. Bird improved by 199 points over a year and a half but has since shed more than 100 of those. Doubtless he will go up on the back of his strong NSW Champs performance.

pax
14-11-2005, 02:01 PM
I will make another offer though. It has been half a decade since we have seen you at Doeberl - I'll pay your entry to the Premier if you would like to come and play next Easter. We might even be able to find you some accommodation if you can't afford that. (I'd even pay it myself). There are plenty of Juniors and even ACT juniors who play in that.

How can you turn down an offer like that?

Now, how do we measure success? Perhaps by PR against ACT players? If FG manages a higher PR against ACT players than his own rating, he "wins". If lower, he "loses" and pays back the money and offers a grovelling apology on the BB.

Oepty
14-11-2005, 02:37 PM
I do not think there needs to be any provision in section 3 of the by-laws to improving juniors. This is not because I believe juniors should excluded from the Australian Championships, but because any clause is unnecessary as such a case is already covered in section 2 b.
Section 2 says
a. has an ACF rating, whether provisional or not, on the list current at
the close of entries of at least 2150; or
b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency
is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.

Surely this covers juniors as well. If a junior is improving (or even is not) and is of 2150 strength or greater then they should get in under this provision

Section 3g says
g. a junior (according to FIDE definition) who is improving and is deemed by
the ACF Council to be of sufficient standard;

This says of sufficient standard. The only standard that is put forward in the By-Laws is 2150 rating. If it does not mean that then I would be very interested in what it does mean. I guess it could be interpretated in many ways, but if that is the intention then the current interpretation of sufficient standard should be made widely known so no juniors are disadvantaged.
If the interpretation of sufficient standard is the same as 2b then 3g is just an unnecessary waste of space and should be removed.

Scott

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 03:18 PM
My interpretation: sufficient standard simply means that the player is considered strong enough to play in the top division of the Australian Championships and be competitive there. It is not necessarily the same thing as the equivalent proficiency rule, although given that that rule is applied fairly leniently anyway there is not a lot of difference between the two.

jenni
14-11-2005, 03:49 PM
How can you turn down an offer like that?

Now, how do we measure success? Perhaps by PR against ACT players? If FG manages a higher PR against ACT players than his own rating, he "wins". If lower, he "loses" and pays back the money and offers a grovelling apology on the BB.

:eek: Too much pressure for all parties. I am happy to make the offer, no strings attached. His last Premier appearance was marred by traumatic events, so let him have another go, enjoy the ACT's best tournament and I promise not to influence the DOP so that he faces an endless stream of ACT's juniors. :cool:

shaun
14-11-2005, 04:23 PM
:eek: Too much pressure for all parties. I am happy to make the offer, no strings attached. His last Premier appearance was marred by traumatic events, so let him have another go, enjoy the ACT's best tournament and I promise not to influence the DOP so that he faces an endless stream of ACT's juniors. :cool:

And with all the potential challengers, they'd be zonal tournaments to organise (eg Tuggeranong, Belconnen, Canberra, Gungahlin Junior zones), then an interzonal type event, and possibly a final 8 match play KO series. And by the time that is all finished the winners will probably be 22 or 23 years old, rendering the whole exercise pointless.

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 05:03 PM
It says that I realise that someone not in full posession of the relevant facts might still fall for it and it is therefore worth pointing out that it is false - on this score I note your complete capitulation.



Firstly, I never claimed to be in position of the facts, especially in regards to Tasmanian chess, which does not interest me at all.
That is why I wrote-
"
In fact, notice how one of theose laws would probably favour a current selector. Does this mean that Bonham will stand down due to a "conflict of interests"?"

Notice how "would probably" is used, not a statement like "definately will", surely you understand the difference. :hand: That said its clear that this rule is archaic and out of date anyway. So any point of debating it seems irrelevent. Maybe, your first duty ought to be to remove it from your (ACF) website. :doh:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 05:21 PM
I don't understand why people are so keen to change regulations that cause no problems whatsoever.


Where do you come from, Mars? Go and ask any adult player with a rating between 1900-2150 and ask them what they think of the "improving junior clause", notice there is no balancing"improving adult clause" :hand:




I could understand the complaints if the junior clause was denying a place to another player. They don't.
A completely false statement. This clause has denied "stronger-as measured by rating" adults from missing out on the tournament in the past. There has been a documented history of adult players missing out on selection.....if you doubt this to be the case, may I suggest a little wager of say $100. Put your money where your mouth is... :hand:




I could understand the complaints if the quality of the tournament was being diluted. It clearly isn't. Two or three players who will probably do quite well are hardly going to dilute the event. Does anyone believe that Moulthun Ly (for example) will not be a most formidable opponent for anyone in the tournament? What if he hadn't won the Australian Junior on countback last year - should he be excluded?

Your mixing oranges and lemons here, nobody has suggested that the current Australian junior champion should not play :hand:

As for not understanding the complaints, well for you to understand that then you need to understand the morality of the arguement. Clearly, if you can see no reason why an adult, who has a higher rating, gets annoyed when a junior is included in an event that they don't deserve to be in, then you can't see reason.




The only thing I would say about this regulation is that you could probably codify it a little more precisely. For example:

-Any player, rated over 2000 on the October rating list (or whichever rating list is appropriate), and whose rating has increased my more than 200 points in the previous two years.

If it is codified in such a way, there would be no need to specifically exclude adults from the provision.

At last some understanding. This would at least be better then the "juniorcentric' approach the ACF currently adopts. However, it begs the question- what is a rating for if not to measure status? Surely a rating means something? or is it only worthwhile when measured against activity? All I will say is this- whats more important to you? To improve your rating or to win the appropriate qualifying tournaments? Which one, in the long term gets more chessplayers? Which one develops the better chess culture? A rating based approach or a competively orientated culture? These are the questions that need to be answered by the ACF, and, they ought not to be based on the prejudices of the old criteria.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 05:32 PM
Firstly my arguements have been for Australian Juniors not ACT juniors - the ACT in fact has put no junior forward although we have arguable cases for a number of them. However you have become so anti ACT you can't help dragging it in all the time.

I wouldn't say I was anti-ACT. I would say, I did criticise your current state championship structure as a complete joke. I stand by that claim...I don't think allowing unrated players into the event does anybody any favours. It most certainly ought not to be a swiss event.




I could probably find at least 6 ACT Juniors who I would be totally confident of beating you in any match, however I would never put a Junior into a grudge match, just to satisfy my own ego.

I applaud your ethics on the ego arguement, very good :clap: However in reality I'm prepared to take on any of your best six. Furthermore, I aim to prove your confidence, misguided.




I will make another offer though. It has been half a decade since we have seen you at Doeberl - I'll pay your entry to the Premier if you would like to come and play next Easter. We might even be able to find you some accommodation if you can't afford that. (I'd even pay it myself). There are plenty of Juniors and even ACT juniors who play in that.

Thank you for your offer..I doubt I will be playing in any Doeberl cups in the foreseeable future.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 07:06 PM
Notice how "would probably" is used, not a statement like "definately will", surely you understand the difference. :hand:

That one is overconfident and the other is gutless? Your comment was inexcusable in either form - if you're unwilling to take enough of an interest in the facts before making such comments then you should simply shut up.


Maybe, your first duty ought to be to remove it from your (ACF) website. :doh:

That is irrelevant to the duties of a selector. Our duties are to apply the bylaws in this case - we could recommend changes based on that experience but it is up to Council to decide whether to make changes.


Go and ask any adult player with a rating between 1900-2150 and ask them what they think of the "improving junior clause", notice there is no balancing"improving adult clause"

Are you claiming that all adult players with ratings in this range would oppose it? If so you are wrong.


Your mixing oranges and lemons here, nobody has suggested that the current Australian junior champion should not play

You completely missed his point, which was that Moulthun Ly should have been allowed to play had he not won the championship and that to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous based on his recent form.


Clearly, if you can see no reason why an adult, who has a higher rating, gets annoyed when a junior is included in an event that they don't deserve to be in, then you can't see reason.

Some adults get annoyed when an improving junior with a marginally lower rating get included. However you seem to be generalising from your own views or those of a few of your mates to those of all adults in the range 1900-2150 without any evidence whatsoever.

Garvinator
14-11-2005, 07:13 PM
You completely missed his point, which was that Moulthun Ly should have been allowed to play had he not won the championship and that to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous based on his recent form.
might be a big non issue even if he didnt win the aus juniors as it is a good chance that he will be over 2150 on december 1.

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 08:14 PM
That one is overconfident and the other is gutless? Your comment was inexcusable in either form - if you're unwilling to take enough of an interest in the facts before making such comments then you should simply shut up.

What a total idiot! Why don't you name for me, in a casual conversation, the last five Melbourne club champions. Before you answer that question, take some deep breaths and relax, its not necessary, nor is it compulsory for you to know all the facts before having a normal conversation, goose.But alas, I regress you are clearly not normal ,are you :hand:



That is irrelevant to the duties of a selector. Our duties are to apply the bylaws in this case - we could recommend changes based on that experience but it is up to Council to decide whether to make changes.
Buck passing bureaucrat :naughty:



Are you claiming that all adult players with ratings in this range would oppose it? If so you are wrong.
Clearly such a claim would be absolute nonsense. You need to brush up on your calculation :hand:



You completely missed his point, which was that Moulthun Ly should have been allowed to play had he not won the championship and that to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous based on his recent form.
Obviously, you do not understand this debate if that is the only arguement you can produce. If that is his point, then I will wait for his opinion, as oppossed to your beat ups.



Some adults get annoyed when an improving junior with a marginally lower rating get included. However you seem to be generalising from your own views or those of a few of your mates to those of all adults in the range 1900-2150 without any evidence whatsoever.

Look this is just amateur hour. If anybody is generalising here surely it is you, bozo.

Firstly, you need to show that any of the people concerned are actually my mates. I understand this will be difficult for you, (especially for somebody with your unique isolating abilities.). Clearly your incapable of proving that. Fg7 1- Bonhambot 0. Secondly, you need to prove that included juniors have a lower rating then myself. Obviously that is a false claim. Fg7 2-BB 0. Then having ascertained who my mates are, you need to show that they have higher ratings then the said juniors. Again impossible to prove, since you don't who "they" are, or what their ratings are. Fg7 3 BB 0. Finally you have to show that "the juniors" are a distinct group, that can be seperated without any previous historical knowledge of past events. This,of course, is a ridiculous generalisation, one which you have chosen. The categories you chose are as arbitary as any other, which if considered in the light of an historical arguement, make no sense. Fg7 4 BB 0. Bonham, your way out of form, you need some training to get rid of that flab.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 08:29 PM
What a total idiot! Why don't you name for me, in a casual conversation, the last five Melbourne club champions. Before you answer that question, take some deep breaths and relax, its not necessary, nor is it compulsory for you to know all the facts before having a normal conversation, goose.But alas, I regress you are clearly not normal ,are you :hand:

It is not necessary to know all the facts before having a normal conversation, but accusing people of conflict of interest is not the kind of thing that most of us do fifteen times before breakfast. I would not make hostile assertions - not even in a private chat - about anything to which the names of the last five MCC champions were relevant without having a fair idea as to those names. And this is far from a private chat.


Clearly such a claim would be absolute nonsense.

Nonetheless you could easily have been read as making it.


Obviously, you do not understand this debate if that is the only arguement you can produce.

Anyone can read his previous comments for themselves and see that you are the one who does not understand them.


Look this is just amateur hour. If anybody is generalising here surely it is you, bozo.

Firstly, you need to show that any of the people concerned are actually my mates.
*rest of babble snipped*

Nonsense - I simply point to the complete lack of any sign that your comments are based on the opinions of anyone outside that circle, and invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

Vlad
14-11-2005, 08:47 PM
That would be nice if observers in this forum had an option to give penalty points to individuals who talk too much crap all the time. In this case they will at least understand that their views (let me put it mildly) are very extreme and not supported by the majority.:)

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 09:50 PM
It is not necessary to know all the facts before having a normal conversation,{snip}

Thank you..I accept your recantation.




Nonetheless you could easily have been read as making it.
Only if you like analysing 2nd best variations.



Anyone can read his previous comments for themselves and see that you are the one who does not understand them. :hand: Please I will let the author of the comments speak for himself, thank you, not a secondry interpreter.


Nonsense - I simply point to the complete lack of any sign that your comments are based on the opinions of anyone outside that circle, and invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

Since you so clearly do not want to define the suppossed circle , which allegedly has a relationship with me ,and is supposedly the bases for my opinions, then I can only deduce that you either wish to remain historically ignorant about Australian chess or that you belong to the class of administrator who perpetuates the same ignorance.

Moreover, I am unconcerned whether you recognise any sign, since I do not care how your brain works, nor do I regard your interpretations as interesting. You may invite me to participate in a discussion with yourself, but until you start practising the common courtesy of not defining someone elses position from your own ill defined categories then I am simply not going to bother. As far as I am concerned, a dialectic involves questioning instead of rhetoric :whistle:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 09:51 PM
That would be nice if observers in this forum had an option to give penalty points to individuals who talk too much crap all the time. In this case they will at least understand that their views (let me put it mildly) are very extreme and not supported by the majority.:)

Who made you delegate for the mass majority, Mr Joe average ;)

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 10:02 PM
Thank you..I accept your recantation.

There wasn't one, read the rest of the paragraph if your attention span is even half that long.


Only if you like analysing 2nd best variations.

2nd best, but 1st most plausible! "Ask any adult ..." would normally be interpreted to mean that every adult you asked of the type referred to would give the response you referred to.


:hand: Please I will let the author of the comments speak for himself, thank you, not a secondry interpreter.

Aha. But in this case you assumed, without asking, that you knew what he meant - which is the same thing you complain about me doing (except that my interpretations tend to be plausible whereas yours in this case was plainly spurious). Looks like you "defining someone elses position from your own ill defined categories" and engaging in "rhetoric instead of conversation". :whistle:


Since you so clearly do not want to define the suppossed circle , which allegedly has a relationship with me ,and is supposedly the bases for my opinions, then I can only deduce that you either wish to remain historically ignorant about Australian chess or that you belong to the class of administrator who perpetuates the same ignorance.

You have no basis for this assumption - it is a complete non sequitur.

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 10:14 PM
Aha. But in this case you assumed, without asking, that you knew what he meant - which is the same thing you complain about me doing (except that my interpretations tend to be plausible whereas yours in this case was plainly spurious). Looks like you "defining someone elses position from your own ill defined categories" and engaging in "rhetoric instead of conversation". :whistle:
Since I have made no comment in regards to Pax's alleged position, I can only deduce that you are :crazy:




You have no basis for this assumption - it is a complete non sequitur.Bonham, honestly your arguing skills are pathetic as is your idiotic over indulgence on archaic Latin. The most basic rule in an arguement is to clarify the other persons position before attacking the position. To do this you ask questions? Nobody starts from a pre-judgement that is false, nobody with common sense anyway. :hand:

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 10:28 PM
Since I have made no comment in regards to Pax's alleged position, I can only deduce that you are :crazy:

Deduce what you like, it's bound to be wrong. In post 98 you replied to pax thus: "Your[sic] mixing oranges and lemons here,[sic] nobody has suggested that the current Australian junior champion should not play". You are clearly misrepresenting pax because he did not say that anything about the AJC not playing. He was discussing whether the person who happens to be the AJC would have deserved the right to play based on his other results if he had not held that title.


Bonham, honestly your arguing skills are pathetic as is your idiotic over indulgence on archaic Latin. The most basic rule in an arguement is to clarify the other persons position before attacking the position. To do this you ask questions? Nobody starts from a pre-judgement that is false, nobody with common sense anyway. :hand:

What would you know about any of this and when have you ever shown any "common sense" on here on anything? It is the responsibility of debaters to express themselves clearly, and those who fail to do so are accountable for any meaning that could reasonably be drawn from their words. The reader is also entitled to rebut any such meaning.

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 10:31 PM
Great, you can name one GM who learned chess as an adult. I can name a hundred who made their greatest strides in their teens.

Who cares and why is this related to the arguement?




Not all top Juniors make it to GM, but nearly every top GM made their greatest improvements in their teens or ealy twenties.

Your seperate statements should read. Probably less then 0.1% of juniors make it to GM level.

No Australian GM has obtained a GM title from playing within Australia.

At least then we would have some context in which to frame your contribution to the debate.

cheers fg7

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 10:44 PM
Deduce what you like, it's bound to be wrong. In post 98 you replied to pax thus: "Your[sic] mixing oranges and lemons here,[sic] nobody has suggested that the current Australian junior champion should not play". You are clearly misrepresenting pax because he did not say that anything about the AJC not playing. He was discussing whether the person who happens to be the AJC would have deserved the right to play based on his other results if he had not held that title.


And as I said in the same post...."Clearly, if you can see no reason why an adult, who has a higher rating, gets annoyed when a junior is included in an event that they don't deserve to be in, then you can't see reason."

So I will repeat myself again for you stupido....

If Moulthans rating is below 2150 he deserves not to play. If he is not Australian junior champion he deserves not to play.

He would certainly not deserve to play in the Australian championship, just for being an improving junior, regardless of what the ACF policy is. This clause is discrimitory. It is ageist It ought to be abolished as being ill defined nonsense based on past ACF ideology. It is a disgrace that it is still in place and I hope that one day somebody sues the ACF for such a discrimitory practise.

Do you understand my position now recidivist. :hand:




What would you know about any of this and when have you ever shown any "common sense" on here on anything? It is the responsibility of debaters to express themselves clearly, and those who fail to do so are accountable for any meaning that could reasonably be drawn from their words. The reader is also entitled to rebut any such meaning.

As I said before, your :crazy: You generalise and then expect me to accept your terminology..... :doh:

cheers Fg7

Ian_Rogers
14-11-2005, 11:24 PM
The example which has escaped most people's memories is Greg Hjoth.

Given special dispensation to play in the 1978 Australian Championship in Perth as a 14-year-old he scored around 50% and played some extraordinary games. Two years later he finished second in the next Championship, a few years later he was an IM.

Not all kids will kick on like but to enable even one to do so is not an abuse of the national Championship but a cobnstructive use of it.

Ian

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 11:34 PM
And as I said in the same post...."Clearly, if you can see no reason why an adult, who has a higher rating, gets annoyed when a junior is included in an event that they don't deserve to be in, then you can't see reason."

Irrelevant to the debate about your interpretation of pax's comments.

Furthermore I have already challenged the overgenerality of your comment "an adult ... gets annoyed". Unless of course you meant that only one adult gets annoyed. Even I would concede that would be an underestimate and the true number who get thusly annoyed in the whole of Australian chess might even be as high as seven.


If Moulthans rating is below 2150 he deserves not to play. If he is not Australian junior champion he deserves not to play.

So are you saying that being AJC makes him worthy of playing but his high and rising rating and stellar recent form do not, even though the AJC in its present state is a weakened event habitually missing its strongest contenders?


He would certainly not deserve to play in the Australian championship, just for being an improving junior, regardless of what the ACF policy is. This clause is discrimitory. It is ageist It ought to be abolished as being ill defined nonsense based on past ACF ideology. It is a disgrace that it is still in place and I hope that one day somebody sues the ACF for such a discrimitory practise.

Take it up with ACF Council then and ask us to change the policy. If you believe it is illegal, provide qualified legal opinion to that effect. I don't believe it is. Similar systems exist in many countries and I'm not aware of anyone successfully suing over those.


Do you understand my position now recidivist.

I was not talking about your irrelevant and peculiar position, I was talking about your claims about pax's far more credible one. So this is another case of you interpreting me without asking me what my meaning was, contrary to your claimed intention. You expect others to ask you to explain yourself, but do not do others the same so-called courtesy.

stupid goat
14-11-2005, 11:52 PM
Thank you for your offer..I doubt I will be playing in any Doeberl cups in the foreseeable future.


you put shame to the goat family. you should change your name to chicken sXXt. :hand:

four four two
15-11-2005, 12:01 AM
Kevin,can you name me one other country that allows junior players to play in a national championship simply on the basis that they are an "improving junior? :hmm:

Ian,what were the requirements to play in the 1978 australian championship?
How far off these requirements was Greg Hjorth? :hmm:

Garvinator
15-11-2005, 12:19 AM
Kevin,can you name me one other country that allows junior players to play in a national championship simply on the basis that they are an "improving junior? :hmm:
talk about not easy to find constitutions and by laws. I went to the new zealand , english, united states and canadian chess federations' websites and i could not find their constitutions/by laws for this matter.

Maybe I am just not a good searcher, or they are not easy to find.

Garvinator
15-11-2005, 12:21 AM
Take it up with ACF Council then and ask us to change the policy.
this is why i am in this thread ;) to see what improvements can be made, mainly with the idea of taking selections out of the equations all together. Basically I would like to see a set of criteria which clearly states what you have to do to get a run and if you dont meet those criteria, you play in the major or not at all.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2005, 01:49 AM
talk about not easy to find constitutions and by laws. I went to the new zealand , english, united states and canadian chess federations' websites and i could not find their constitutions/by laws for this matter.

Maybe I am just not a good searcher, or they are not easy to find.

I found NZ's with relative ease. NZ let you in if you are over 2000 NZCF or 2100 FIDE, and have an "exceptional circumstances" clause for players with ratings below that but who can demonstrate they are of standard. They can also promote a player from the Major to avoid the bye.

I found Canada's within about a minute. here (http://www.chess.ca/section_8.htm)

442: We don't let players in just for being an improving junior, they have to also be "of sufficient standard". I'm not aware of another federation using this exact same wording but it doesn't matter - that other federations also have options open only to juniors yet don't appear to get sued for it is alone enough to refute firegoar's claim. Note also I've only read rules from the English speaking world thus far.

Rincewind
15-11-2005, 07:06 AM
442: We don't let players in just for being an improving junior, they have to also be "of sufficient standard". I'm not aware of another federation using this exact same wording but it doesn't matter - that other federations also have options open only to juniors yet don't appear to get sued for it is alone enough to refute firegoar's claim. Note also I've only read rules from the English speaking world thus far.

I guess my problem is I don't don't have a problem in letting any player in if they can make a case of being "of sufficient standard". I don't know why such a clause would need to prescribe that such a candidate needs to be a junior and I reject the idea that this "sufficent standard" should be lower for juniors as I don't see the Australian Championship as a training ground for juniors.

pax
15-11-2005, 09:30 AM
Needless to say, Kevin has correctly interpreted my comments re: Moulthun Ly, and the Goat has not. Actually, I thought they were pretty plain and didn't *need* interpretation, but there you go.

pax
15-11-2005, 09:36 AM
The funny thing is that FG would seem to have no problem (or at least less problem) with an improving *player* clause (in place of improving junior), despite the fact that such players would almost always be juniors (based on past records)..

Ian Rout
15-11-2005, 10:44 AM
The funny thing is that FG would seem to have no problem (or at least less problem) with an improving *player* clause (in place of improving junior), despite the fact that such players would almost always be juniors (based on past records)..
It looks like a fairly fine line - U/2150 adults have to have an "equivalent level of proficiency" (to 2150) while juniors merely have to be "improving" and "of sufficient standard". Obviously this sets the bar lower for juniors especially if the committee chooses an excessively generous standard of "sufficient" but otherwise not by a long way.

In practice I don't see that it would hurt to apply the same standard to adults; there would in practice be very few additional entries and given that it's a Swiss it is better to err on the side of admitting marginal cases. As noted elsewhere there are few modern cases of people taking up chess late in life and achieving GM standard, but I suspect there is the odd late starter who reaches 2150 level.

Have U/2150 adults admitted in the past really being of demonstrable 2150 standard (and how was it demonstrated?) or was there an element of benefit of the doubt / "sufficient standard"?

firegoat7
15-11-2005, 11:02 AM
Needless to say, Kevin has correctly interpreted my comments re: Moulthun Ly, and the Goat has not. Actually, I thought they were pretty plain and didn't *need* interpretation, but there you go.

Ahh but Pax, you miss the point of my arguement. The idea is for you to represent your own words. Clearly your an adult, somebody who can think for themselves. It would be pointless in me debating Bonham if I had indeed fallen for the trap of not asking you what you meant first.Better I debate you, the person who made the statement and not your messenger boy. :hand:

It must be noted that straight away you confuse the Bonham debate with me as one about 'mis-interpretation'. My initial response to you adequately covered my position on the matter. I understand what you meant and I also dismiss your arguement as being irrelevent to my position.

Needless to say :hand: me not wanting to argue with Bonham about your statement and an interpretation of your statement are two seperate issues. The first is an ethical response the second is an arguement about the facts.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
15-11-2005, 11:38 AM
Not all kids will kick on like but to enable even one to do so is not an abuse of the national Championship but a cobnstructive use of it.



Your example about Greg Hjorth may be true, I do not know how he qualified, but let us accept that your version of the events is true for arguements sake.

Existentially speaking Hjorth played some great games and for a very brief moment he has a major influence on Australian chess. However, two arguements immediately spring to mind against your position.

One, Greg Hjorth no longer plays rated tournament chess. It could be argued that letting him into the Australain chess so young actually contributed to this burn out. I suspect that chess is suffering from the same sort of problems as world tennis. Young players burn out because they experience success to quickly.

Secondly, It could be argued that Greg would have become an IM anyway. It just might have taken a little bit longer. No doubt playing in an Australian championship at 14 would have helped him to improve. But the obvious reply is that it would help anybody to improve. If that is the case then there is an arguement that this "juniorcentric' approach is elitism and it begs the question- Is this what Australian chess needs for it to develop?

No doubt we need strong players (juniors and adults), but not at the expense of fairness. The strong juniors will rise to the top anyway, so why have this clause. In my opinion you would be better served by having a much more dynamic qualifying system. At least this way the culture of chess can retain some status, dynamism and objective goal orientation.

Furthermore, this arguement is not restricted to junior chess. I believe the same sort of biased elitism operates at the top end of world chess. I see no logical reason why the top strata of world chess is restricted to about a dozen players. Surely world chess would be better served, if these closed Super GM tournament systems (I am not talking about swiss events), allowed a more dynamic qualification promotion/relegation system instead of relying on the same token underated Nationalist representative as the token ring in.

I'm sure somebody of your International experience could enlighten us here about how frustrating such a system must be to break into. Surely you would have prefered your chess career to be measured on performance with opportunity instead of performace with exclusion? As far as I can see, GMs like yourself seem to be denied these opportunities, but I may be wrong, I have not experienced it.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
15-11-2005, 11:58 AM
So are you saying that being AJC makes him worthy of playing but his high and rising rating and stellar recent form do not, even though the AJC in its present state is a weakened event habitually missing its strongest contenders?

You are probably the most annoying person I have ever met in my life. Not only do you know my position, but you deliberately attempt to misrepresent it. You have serious pathological problems.

However, over time people will realise that I am genuine in what I believe. Almost everybody here knows that I believe that Australian chess ought to be more dynamic. Even ShaunP, a person who I don't particularly get along with well, can at least understand what my standard line of reasoning is about qualification. I suspect that most BBs here are aware of why at least some of these questions need to be raised.

You, however are the exception, you want to box me into a position where I say that Moulthan Ly does not deserve to play. The question is why?

Moulthan Ly qualifies as Australian junior champion. I accept the authority of such a claim. He should play in the Australian championship.

I want to say one thing for the last time concerning you. It is you who makes these claims about my position, not me. I can only suggest that this is because you want to create an imaginary position in your head, so that you can be right. I have never stated anything along the lines of the mis-representation you report in the above post. Over time people will wake up to your games. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

pax
15-11-2005, 12:34 PM
Ahh but Pax, you miss the point of my arguement. The idea is for you to represent your own words. Clearly your an adult, somebody who can think for themselves. It would be pointless in me debating Bonham if I had indeed fallen for the trap of not asking you what you meant first.Better I debate you, the person who made the statement and not your messenger boy. :hand:

My original words were quite clear. You were just too thick to comprehend them. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

firegoat7
15-11-2005, 12:51 PM
My original words were quite clear. You were just too thick to comprehend them. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

Pax, you still seem to be laboring under the misconception that I didn't understand your simplistic arguement. :hand:
cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2005, 01:16 PM
OK folks, apologies for the bold and for an extremely boring meta-post but this will bury firegoat's pet tactic forever so there will be no need for me to do it again, I can just refer back to this post.


You are probably the most annoying person I have ever met in my life. Not only do you know my position, but you deliberately attempt to misrepresent it.

Actually I was asking you if that was your position instead of asserting that it was which is exactly what you keep asking me to do. I did this because I was genuinely not sure in this case. You responded to my question by falsely insisting I was asserting (of course you did not ask if I was asserting before doing this) and flaming me in your usual pitiful fashion.

Since this is the response I get when I do what you ask me to, unless you now publicly apologise for the above pathetic outburst, retract it and undertake not to repeat such rubbish in future, I shall from this point on never ask. I shall simply assume your words always say what I think they say and never give you the benefit of any misplaced doubt. Furthermore I will cite this as an example of why your requests for me to ask you to explain yourself should be ignored.


You, however are the exception, you want to box me into a position where I say that Moulthan Ly does not deserve to play. The question is why?

Moulthan Ly qualifies as Australian junior champion. I accept the authority of such a claim. He should play in the Australian championship.

You are again here misinterpreting my comments without asking me if that is what I mean, which is the thing that you insist I should be doing.

I have nowhere attempted to pin you to the position that Moulthun should not be playing. I have just asked if your view is that only his Australian junior title justifies his inclusion. That was what my question to you very clearly meant.

You have now clarified that this is indeed your view. Now I want to go on to say that that view is silly. The Australian Junior Championships is a prestigious and strong junior event and the winner definitely deserves to qualify. But some junior players acheive more notable results in other events. Moulthun's recent form provides much stronger indication of how good a player he is than his AJC win. To say that he deserves to be in for winning the AJC but would not deserve to be in had he come second on tiebreak in the AJC but otherwise recorded all his other good results, would be silly. Yet this is clearly your position.

Why do you think the AJC should be an automatic qualifier when you are opposed to state championships being automatic qualifiers? Some of the smaller states (and let's include NSW in that list if Andrew Bird gets up :owned: ) have titles that are sometimes won by sub-2150 players but are still stronger than the AJC.


I want to say one thing for the last time concerning you. It is you who makes these claims about my position, not me. I can only suggest that this is because you want to create an imaginary position in your head, so that you can be right. I have never stated anything along the lines of the mis-representation you report in the above post. Over time people will wake up to your games. :whistle:

This paragraph is deluded, unsubstantiated self-righteous drivel.

I note pax also correctly contends you misrepresented him but I see no apology from you for doing so, nor for your failure to ask him what his position was before attacking it. You write:


It would be pointless in me debating Bonham if I had indeed fallen for the trap of not asking you what you meant first.

This is an utter fabrication. You did not ask pax what he meant re his comments about Moulthun Ly.

I conclude from this that everything you have whined about people misinterpreting you on this BB was inconsistent, self-serving, and a mark of your inability to express yourself clearly. That little game is now well and truly over for you. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2005, 02:01 PM
Have U/2150 adults admitted in the past really being of demonstrable 2150 standard (and how was it demonstrated?) or was there an element of benefit of the doubt / "sufficient standard"?

In most years it has been fairly leniently interpreted so that someone who has a fairly strong case to play but is, on the balance of all evidence, probably a bit below the standard, quite often gets in. In some years (when the cutoff was 2250) the interpretation has been very lenient.

Brian_Jones
15-11-2005, 04:05 PM
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!

Rincewind
15-11-2005, 04:29 PM
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!

I'm not against qualifying places via the grand prix even though this will probably reward the very active and prepared to travel player rather than the stronger player. However, as many GP events are weekenders played at 60+x time controls is this running counter to your argument of the first couple of paragraphs?

Ian Rout
15-11-2005, 05:42 PM
In most years it has been fairly leniently interpreted so that someone who has a fairly strong case to play but is, on the balance of all evidence, probably a bit below the standard, quite often gets in. In some years (when the cutoff was 2250) the interpretation has been very lenient.
This being the case is there really a lot gained by having two rules (for juniors and adults) which come down to almost the same thing in practice?

The field consists broadly of three groups: the major contenders; the next level who have some chance of winning and will test the contenders; and a third group with next to no chance but who are there for "the good of Australian chess" or to make the tournament more interesting without seriously compromising the event.

If it is accepted that this is the case (and maybe some people don't agree) then it seem reasonable to allow more flexibility and common sense, with broad guidelines, in determining the third group, not create elaborate and restrictive processes then argue about whether they were actually followed.

As far as qualification through the GP. it obviously won't generate more deserving qualifiers for a number of reasons, but as a means of promoting the GP it could be quite effective.

Rincewind
15-11-2005, 05:58 PM
If it is accepted that this is the case (and maybe some people don't agree) then it seem reasonable to allow more flexibility and common sense, with broad guidelines, in determining the third group, not create elaborate and restrictive processes then argue about whether they were actually followed.

I'm not sure about the term "the good of Australian chess" as it would seem to me that smacks of jingoism and could be fashioned to support almost any applicant.

I take your point regarding the 3 groups and if we call them groups A, B and C in the order you introduced them then I would argue for making the inclusion of group A as exhaustive as possible, group B as large as practical and group C as small as possible. I do support the automatic qualification of reigning state and ACT champions as well as reigning junior champion. However, any exceptions to the normal qualification process should be made to present a convincing case for inclusion based on the standards of belonging to group A or B.

Ian Rout
15-11-2005, 06:02 PM
I'm not sure about the term "the good of Australian chess" as it would seem to me that smacks of jingoism and could be fashioned to support almost any applicant.

Well I think you know what I mean. Maybe there's a better way to summarise it, though I do like that one.

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 10:29 AM
Actually I was asking you if that was your position instead of asserting that it was which is exactly what you keep asking me to do. I did this because I was genuinely not sure in this case. You responded to my question by falsely insisting I was asserting (of course you did not ask if I was asserting before doing this) and flaming me in your usual pitiful fashion.

This is partially true, I apologise for not interpreting the text correctly. A clear case of jumping to a conclusion without carefully reading your textual intention :doh:

Nevertheless, I question your motives for such a question given that you know my position already.





You have now clarified that this is indeed your view. Now I want to go on to say that that view is silly. The Australian Junior Championships is a prestigious and strong junior event and the winner definitely deserves to qualify.

No arguement. It is not restricted in anyway to geographical boundaries.



But some junior players acheive more notable results in other events. Moulthun's recent form provides much stronger indication of how good a player he is than his AJC win.

Irrelevent point




To say that he deserves to be in for winning the AJC but would not deserve to be in had he come second on tiebreak in the AJC but otherwise recorded all his other good results, would be silly. Yet this is clearly your position.

Well maybe you ought to consider the legitimacy of the ACF countback system or question why there has to be only one winner, when the players finished on an equal score. Possibly a play off match system might be necessary to gain only one winner.

Therefore to suggest this is my position is false. It is beyond any realistic expectation to hold me to the sophistry of your argument when obviously it is the ACF that creates the inequality in its junior title distribution in the first place. It is hardly silly to suggest he deserves a spot for being current Australian junior champion...It is silly to say he deserves a spot for not being the current Australian junior champion. :owned:




Why do you think the AJC should be an automatic qualifier when you are opposed to state championships being automatic qualifiers?
Not restricted by outdated geographical boundaries. Open to all junior chess players in the country. Is recognised as being a difficult achievement, unlike some of the more marginal chess states.




Some of the smaller states (and let's include NSW in that list if Andrew Bird gets up :owned: ) have titles that are sometimes won by sub-2150 players but are still stronger than the AJC.
You know I am not a supporter of state qualification.



I note pax also correctly contends you misrepresented him but I see no apology from you for doing so, nor for your failure to ask him what his position was before attacking it.



Pax has not stated how or where I clearly mis-represent him. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

peter_parr
16-11-2005, 10:37 AM
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

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 10:44 AM
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.



How true. I would also like to add, Yes Australian chess could possibly get these players back over the board if they structured the cultural system of Australian chess, in such a way, as to encourage participation.

We seem to have forgotten our chess artists, players like Goldsmith,Hacche, Woodhams, The wiz, J.Purdy, L.Jones, Samar ,Fuller, Zaric etc. People that can play, and who would possibly liven up the tournament, if they had a reasonable chance of qualifying.




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

Could not agree more! Maybe the reserves tournament needs a more realistic revamping as well.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 10:51 AM
Nonsense!


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




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

Brian_Jones
16-11-2005, 10:59 AM
In the period 1993-2005 Brian Jones you scored 50% only once in the Australian Championship Peter Parr

For the record, I have played in the Australian Championship 5 times:

1988 Gosford 7/13
1990 Sydney 6/11
1992 Melbourne 5.5/11
1996 Sydney 4/11
2004 Adelaide 5.5/11

Brian_Jones
16-11-2005, 11:04 AM
Also, for the record, I have not applied to play in the 2006 Australian Championship in Brisbane. I will be providing the bookstall!

pax
16-11-2005, 12:35 PM
Nonsense!

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


Now, now, the BB is no place for petty squabbles. Oh, wait, yes it is :cool:

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2005, 01:39 PM
This is partially true, I apologise for not interpreting the text correctly. A clear case of jumping to a conclusion without carefully reading your textual intention :doh:

Nevertheless, I question your motives for such a question given that you know my position already.

No I didn't, I was confident what your position was but I wanted to be absolutely clear on it. Don't even try to save face here, your reaction compared to what you had been asking me to do was so over the top and inconsistent that only an abject and total apology and crawling back under your rock can be sufficient. :hand: That said, even the limited apology is something.


Irrelevent point

Why? Isn't all evidence of playing strength relevant?


Well maybe you ought to consider the legitimacy of the ACF countback system or question why there has to be only one winner, when the players finished on an equal score. Possibly a play off match system might be necessary to gain only one winner.

Therefore to suggest this is my position is false. It is beyond any realistic expectation to hold me to the sophistry of your argument when obviously it is the ACF that creates the inequality in its junior title distribution in the first place.

If you meant a player who ties for first but then is not the winner to also qualify you should have said this. But let's simplify things and say Moulthun had finished second by half a point in the AJC. Would he then deserve to play in the Aus Champs on the basis of his other recent efforts? I say yes.


Not restricted by outdated geographical boundaries. Open to all junior chess players in the country. Is recognised as being a difficult achievement, unlike some of the more marginal chess states.

Beating grandmasters is also recognised as being a difficult achievement.

Your position is extremely incoherent. You object to juniors possibly getting in under standards not available to adults, call this discrimination, abuse those supporting it and suggest we could be sued for it, but you also support the winner of a junior-only tournament that adults cannot enter qualifying. The latter is every bit as "discriminatory" if not more.


Pax has not stated how or where I clearly mis-represent him. :whistle:


Yes he has, it is very clearcut from his comment that I interpreted his comments correctly and you didn't. If you can't work it out from that, seriously consider retiring from the internet.

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 02:04 PM
If you meant a player who ties for first but then is not the winner to also qualify you should have said this. But let's simplify things and say Moulthun had finished second by half a point in the AJC. Would he then deserve to play in the Aus Champs on the basis of his other recent efforts? I say yes.

If the player had not won the junior event, then no they don't deserve to qualify.
I think a spot for junior(s) champions is reasonable.




Your position is extremely incoherent. You object to juniors possibly getting in under standards not available to adults, call this discrimination, abuse those supporting it and suggest we could be sued for it, but you also support the winner of a junior-only tournament that adults cannot enter qualifying. The latter is every bit as "discriminatory" if not more.
I don't think my position is as melodramatic as you make it sound. Yes I object to unqualified juniors being randomnly selected by ACF selectors, especially if adults do not have the same criteria of "improving player" as a possibility.

I don't think the latter is every bit as discrimitory. I reject your assumption that it is. It is no way more discrimitory then "selection of improving juniors', which is not only biased in favor of adult over juniors, but has the added feature of discriminating between juniors based on the judgements of amateurs. :hand:




Yes he has, it is very clearcut from his comment that I interpreted his comments correctly and you didn't. If you can't work it out from that, seriously consider retiring from the internet.

I have already responded to this pedantic statement. Pax has made no attempt to engage the issue, he merely followed you like a little sheep. Baaaa Baaaaa :hand:

Oepty
16-11-2005, 04:57 PM
My interpretation: sufficient standard simply means that the player is considered strong enough to play in the top division of the Australian Championships and be competitive there. It is not necessarily the same thing as the equivalent proficiency rule, although given that that rule is applied fairly leniently anyway there is not a lot of difference between the two.

Kevin. Well don't you need to be of at least 2150 strength to be included, barring the special criteria rewards for winning tournaments. I think any other interpretation just makes things more confused and less clear for potential applicants under the rule.
Scott

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 05:19 PM
Now, now, the BB is no place for petty squabbles. Oh, wait, yes it is :cool:

Careful, lest you spark a petty squabble on the appropriateness of petty squabbles. :D

Oepty
16-11-2005, 05:26 PM
If the player had not won the junior event, then no they don't deserve to qualify.
I think a spot for junior(s) champions is reasonable.

Would you stand by this if Ly's rating exceeds 2150 on the next rating list as Garvin says it might?
Scott

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 05:33 PM
Would you stand by this if Ly's rating exceeds 2150 on the next rating list as Garvin says it might?

I fail to see your point Scott. Should that happen wouldn't he qualify anyway?

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2005, 05:40 PM
I don't think the latter is every bit as discrimitory. I reject your assumption that it is. It is no way more discrimitory then "selection of improving juniors', which is not only biased in favor of adult over juniors, but has the added feature of discriminating between juniors based on the judgements of amateurs. :hand:

But there is also discrimination between adults on the same grounds, and your claim of discrimination referred to discrimination between juniors and adults, so that's a complete red herring. You haven't provided any evidence that it is less discriminatory in terms of discrimination between juniors and adults.


I have already responded to this pedantic statement. Pax has made no attempt to engage the issue,

Perhaps he figures that you are not worth the bother. You're the one trying to hide behind pedantry by pointing to him not precisely/explicitly/directly specifying which comment it was when it is obvious.


Kevin. Well don't you need to be of at least 2150 strength to be included, barring the special criteria rewards for winning tournaments. I think any other interpretation just makes things more confused and less clear for potential applicants under the rule.

A bit of confusion for all is better than cutting out someone who deserves to be in through inflexibility.

Oepty
16-11-2005, 06:19 PM
I fail to see your point Scott. Should that happen wouldn't he qualify anyway?

Well, yes I know that. David has been saying that Ly does would not deserve to play if he did not win AJC. I was just pointing out that would be nonsense if his rating exceeded 2150.
Scott

Alan Shore
16-11-2005, 06:24 PM
Well, yes I know that. David has been saying that Ly does would not deserve to play if he did not win AJC. I was just pointing out that would be nonsense if his rating exceeded 2150.
Scott

...

But then he would anyway, on rating.

....?

Oepty
16-11-2005, 06:30 PM
A bit of confusion for all is better than cutting out someone who deserves to be in through inflexibility.

Kevin I am not arguing against flexiability, but I am arguing against a interpretation of the improving junior clause that makes the bar any lower for a junior than it does for an adult. If a player, junior, improving junior, non improving junior, adult, senior adult is rated below 2150, or perhaps even unrated, can show they are really are a play of 2150 strength or above then they should be able to play. If the players are given a bit of benifit of doubt, let in just in case, then as long as the same criteria is applied across all sections the chess community I am happy. What I don't want is juniors selected just because they are showing a lot of promise, improving quickly and might be able to play at that standard if their improvement continues and they have a good tournament.
Having said that I have no problem with Chris Wallis and Raymond Song playing in the Australian Championships, although I have not studied their results.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2005, 08:39 PM
I think there is no problem with having the bar lower for juniors than for adults, for two reasons:

1. In a sense it is anyway. If you interpret the "equivalent standard" provision to give the benefit of the doubt (which you have to do to avoid very controversial omissions) then you are forced to give juniors more leeway generally because the evidence on their actual playing strength is typically less clear. However if you do that when there is a single rule for all you can get accused of being junior-biased when you're not. Better, I think, to have a rule specifically for juniors so that people can call the rules junior-biased instead of the selectors. :lol:

2. The argument for letting strong juniors play concerns their development - an opportunity for them to become stronger at a critical phase of their career by playing in a lengthy and strong event. This is part of Australia's aim to develop more titled players in the future, especially GMs. I do not think the same argument applies to adult players because in general an adult who is not already close enough to 2150 strength to qualify under the "equivalent proficiency" rule is not at all likely to ever become a GM let alone an IM. If anybody has examples of adults of well under 2150 strength anywhere in world chess going on to become 2400+ IMs or better I would be interested to see them. Doubtless there are some but I suspect there are not many.

Garvinator
16-11-2005, 10:45 PM
I think there is no problem with having the bar lower for juniors than for adults, for two reasons:
the juniors already have the bar lower to qualify, australian junior champion. This opportunity does not exist for the adults.

I do believe the current qualifying rules to be discrimatory in favour of juniors and adults who are close to 2150 have ever right to be pissed off when a junior of similiar rating is allowed in an adult is not.

Everyone should qualify under the same rules, not different rules for different ppl.

I still see that no one has provided a whole batch of statistics to prove that the clause for juniors actually proves what it is aimed to acheive. My question still stands from earlier, how many juniors admitted under the junior rule, have then gone on to be over 2150 by the next australian championship (excluding rating uplifts).

I believe I have been told about Ronald Yu and others performing well in an australian championship, but I thought the purpose was to have these players go on to become much better than less than 2150. If this isnt happening,then the junior regulation is failing to achieve what it is set out to do, according to Kevin's comments.

I guess part of my lack of understanding on this issue is that I believe that regulations should be set in concrete and then everyone knows what they have to do to qualify. If you fail to meet the criteria, tough luck. I dont favour optional selections by the acf council, when it isnt required at all.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 12:21 AM
the juniors already have the bar lower to qualify, australian junior champion. This opportunity does not exist for the adults.

That only qualifies one junior. In a given year there could be several deserving the opportunity if my point 2 is accepted.


I do believe the current qualifying rules to be discrimatory in favour of juniors and adults who are close to 2150 have ever right to be pissed off when a junior of similiar rating is allowed in an adult is not.

Not if there was a similar rule when they were juniors (I don't know if this is the case or not but from Ian's comments re Hjorth it sounds like this provision has been around for a while.)

Rating is not the only thing relevant to any assessment of playing strength. If entry was based on rating alone then because some lag in measuring the improvement of any fast-improving junior is inevitable in any rating system, juniors would be discriminated against. We don't select olympiads on rating - should we?

(Of course, you could avoid this by including formulae for measuring improvement, but these would have their problems too.)


Everyone should qualify under the same rules, not different rules for different ppl.

Does that mean you support not including the Australian Junior Champion, Australian Womens Champion and all the state champions?


I still see that no one has provided a whole batch of statistics to prove that the clause for juniors actually proves what it is aimed to acheive. My question still stands from earlier, how many juniors admitted under the junior rule, have then gone on to be over 2150 by the next australian championship (excluding rating uplifts).

Rather difficult when nobody here is in posession of a full set of relevant records including details of the reasons for acceptance of every applicant over a period long enough to get a statistically significant result.


I believe I have been told about Ronald Yu and others performing well in an australian championship, but I thought the purpose was to have these players go on to become much better than less than 2150. If this isnt happening,then the junior regulation is failing to achieve what it is set out to do, according to Kevin's comments.

The proportion of strong juniors who go on to become IMs or GMs will be a small proportion no matter what methods you apply. No matter how much data you have, proving rigorously that it works or does not work is going to be extremely difficult. Even if you have good or bad figures, proving that they are corellated with the rule will be more or less impossible. Rather the rule relies on assumptions that are very well grounded in general chess experience: players are most likely to improve rapidly as juniors, fast and sustained improvement for strong adult players is unusual, players benefit from strong competition. You would be better off assessing those general principles from outside evidence than trying to prove this rule does or does not work based on a very small sample.


I guess part of my lack of understanding on this issue is that I believe that regulations should be set in concrete and then everyone knows what they have to do to qualify. If you fail to meet the criteria, tough luck. I dont favour optional selections by the acf council, when it isnt required at all.

Everyone knows that if they get their rating above 2150 and keep it there they are in, so it is not like subjectivity is inescapable, rather it is something that might help you if you don't reach the rating limit but still there are reasons why you should be included.

firegoat7
17-11-2005, 12:58 AM
the juniors already have the bar lower to qualify, australian junior champion. This opportunity does not exist for the adults.
gg you bring a tear to my eyes... yes you are right.....do not forget...as long as you apply personal common sense in every situation...and then reflect on it ,truthfully...as if any of us knows what the actual "truth is""..then u can achievieve great things....gg I think your a superstar, i reckon u have have grown so much over the last 2 years that u put every one else here to shame...pleases keep up your magnificant work... :clap: :clap:



I do believe the current qualifying rules to be discrimatory in favour of juniors and adults who are close to 2150 have ever right to be pissed off when a junior of similiar rating is allowed in an adult is not.


Instead of "and adults" u ought to have used the phrase ' probably/possibly against adults', but then "we" would have been falling for the bourgeois tricks of "correct" grammar, as if there was ever such a thing... :hmm:




Everyone should qualify under the same rules, not different rules for different ppl. [quote gg]
I still see that no one has provided a whole batch of statistics to prove that the clause for juniors actually proves what it is aimed to acheive. My question still stands from earlier, how many juniors admitted under the junior rule, have then gone on to be over 2150 by the next australian championship (excluding rating uplifts).
Well, what can I say...gg- please accept this as absolute reality...the bourgeois never actually do any work of any significance, all they ever do is talk in circles, "they" have no idea what work really is.



I believe I have been told about Ronald Yu and others performing well in an australian championship, but I thought the purpose was to have these players go on to become much better than less than 2150. If this isnt happening,then the junior regulation is failing to achieve what it is set out to do, according to Kevin's comments.

Of course, why?, because Kevin, despite his claims, is a member of the ruling class.........



I guess part of my lack of understanding on this issue is that I believe that regulations should be set in concrete and then everyone knows what they have to do to qualify. If you fail to meet the criteria, tough luck. I dont favour optional selections by the acf council, when it isnt required at all.

GG, you are a superstar!!! You make me proud....The reality is you are not to blame!!!, Anybody who really investigates these issues can quickly see that, the bourgeoise do not really care if their analysis is SCIENTIFIC. All they care about is POWER. The reason u don't understand the issues is not about your individual talent :hand: No No GG, the reason these premises make no sense is because they are illogical...never blame yourself brother...the system is corrupt, at least u have some glimpse into its irrationality!! :uhoh: GG, your a champ, if u ever want to play in a tournament in Melbourne, stay at my place, let the people at MCC form a relationship with u, let them be a part of your life experience....well, anyway I regard u as a friend ok!!...If u ever play in chess in Victoria give me a call ok.


cheers fg7

firegoat7
17-11-2005, 01:01 AM
I think there is no problem with having the bar lower for juniors than for adults, for two reasons:

1. nonsense (snip) :hand:


2. The argument for letting strong juniors play concerns their development (snip)
Ridiculous :whistle:

cheers FG7

Garvinator
17-11-2005, 01:04 AM
I do not think the same argument applies to adult players because in general an adult who is not already close enough to 2150 strength to qualify under the "equivalent proficiency" rule is not at all likely to ever become a GM let alone an IM.


Rather the rule relies on assumptions that are very well grounded in general chess experience: players are most likely to improve rapidly as juniors, fast and sustained improvement for strong adult players is unusual, players benefit from strong competition.

Sorry to cobble two comments from different posts together, but I believe that one aspect can be disputed and I believe there is another reason why it appears that juniors have more 'potential' than adults.

Juniors generally have vast avenues to play and be coached, almost for free (regarding the junior that is). As soon as the junior becomes an adult, or an adult starts from stratch as an adult, this opportunity does not exist.

I am yet to hear of any organisation that provides anywhere near the same level of infrastructure for adult coaching as there is for junior coaching at similiar cost rates for the person RECEIVING the coaching.

I do believe that given similiar circumstances, adults would be improving at similiar rates as to junior. I do believe that the junior rule is based on a whole set of assumptions, which even Kevin's comment:


Rather difficult when nobody here is in posession of a full set of relevant records including details of the reasons for acceptance of every applicant over a period long enough to get a statistically significant result.

shows that the rule has not been properly statistically tested.

I would like to know the origins for the junior rule, who proposed it, why it was proposed etc etc.


Rating is not the only thing relevant to any assessment of playing strength. If entry was based on rating alone then because some lag in measuring the improvement of any fast-improving junior is inevitable in any rating system, juniors would be discriminated against.

I have suggested an activity requirement also, which could weed out the adult sandbaggers as well. I would like to see more rating evidence of this so called lag when talking about 2100 juniors (and I dont mean just one or two players).


Does that mean you support not including the Australian Junior Champion, Australian Womens Champion and all the state champions?

I support a spot for the australian junior champion.
I support a spot for all state and one territory champions- I do remember reading though that canada has a 2000 rating cutoff for what we would call state/territory champion.
Australian Womens Champion- one debate a time thanks, nice attempt to troll Kevin ;) :lol:

I dislike (call it hate if you want) subjective selections when they arent required.


We don't select olympiads on rating - should we?
No, many other factors can come into consideration for olympiad selection ie previous performance, ability to travel, overseas competition etc.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 01:07 AM
Re firegoat posts: Looks like someone may have overcelebrated the soccer win, if such a thing is possible. :rolleyes:

firegoat7
17-11-2005, 01:16 AM
Looks like someone may have overcelebrated the soccer win, if such a thing is possible. :rolleyes:

Mr Bonham, when r u going 2 ever realise that people can see though u??

cheers Fg7

P.S why don't u b yourself instead of fulfilling a role u can never ever achieve?

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 01:24 AM
firegoat has regressed to SMS-speak.

firegoat7
17-11-2005, 01:26 AM
firegoat has regressed to SMS-speak.
i may have evolved, who is to judge?

Ian_Rogers
17-11-2005, 01:40 AM
Firegoat
Greg Hjorth didn't burn out. He tried the life of a chess professional, didn't like it, and had other fields in which he was perfroming extraordinary feats.As far as the chess professional circuit goes, it's not a closed shop. I was probably advantaged in tournament invitations by being from an 'exotic' country. If my FIDE rating had gone higher I would have played more strong tournaments, but that's my fault.

Ian

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 01:44 AM
I do believe that given similiar circumstances, adults would be improving at similiar rates as to junior.

I don't. If this was true it would follow that adults with money to burn on coaching would improve rapidly. They generally don't. Also, are you suggesting strong competition does not play a role in helping juniors improve?


shows that the rule has not been properly statistically tested.

"Proper statistical testing" is an unrealistic expectation given the amount of data that would be needed and the obstacles to establishing cause and effect. We have it in place, we know reasons why it should work, if people can provide a decent standard of evidence that it doesn't we can look at whether it should be changed.


I would like to know the origins for the junior rule, who proposed it, why it was proposed etc etc.

So would I. Does Ian Rogers' "Australian Chess Into The Eighties" book shed light on the qualification standards existing in 1980? I don't have a copy but suspect it might.


I have suggested an activity requirement also, which could weed out the adult sandbaggers as well. I would like to see more rating evidence of this so called lag when talking about 2100 juniors (and I dont mean just one or two players).

Look at ratings histories for fast-improving juniors Bill has posted in the Ratings Arena during discussions about them, for instance.

By the way "sandbagging" does not refer to sitting on your rating, it refers to deliberately trashing your rating to win ratings prizes. But I know what you're referring to.


I support a spot for the australian junior champion.
I support a spot for all state and one territory champions- I do remember reading though that canada has a 2000 rating cutoff for what we would call state/territory champion.
Australian Womens Champion- one debate a time thanks, nice attempt to troll Kevin ;) :lol:

Not trolling at all, although I may not have understood exactly what you were saying. You wrote that you didn't want "different rules for different ppl." It now seems that you do want different rules for different ages, states and genders of people but not potentially different subjective selection standards (are you accusing us of being likely to be biased, inconsistent or incompetent?).

Doesn't Canada's cutoff only apply to some of its provinces?


No, many other factors can come into consideration for olympiad selection ie previous performance, ability to travel, overseas competition etc.

Then why shouldn't previous performance in the same event (for starters) be potentially relevant to whether someone deserves to be in the Aus Champs?

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 01:47 AM
i may have evolved, who is to judge?

Point taken and apologies to all sms-speakers everywhere.

Brian_Jones
17-11-2005, 07:51 AM
If anybody has examples of adults of well under 2150 strength anywhere in world chess going on to become 2400+ IMs or better I would be interested to see them. Doubtless there are some but I suspect there are not many.

Tony Kosten was about 2000 standard at age 19 but made a dramatic improvement at about age 20 when he started to study and understand the game. He became IM and later GM standard by age 25.

shaun
17-11-2005, 08:39 AM
And Kevin Harrison didn't even learn the game until he was 19 or 20, before going on to be NSW Champion in not that long a period of time.

Oepty
17-11-2005, 05:30 PM
I think there is no problem with having the bar lower for juniors than for adults, for two reasons:

1. In a sense it is anyway. If you interpret the "equivalent standard" provision to give the benefit of the doubt (which you have to do to avoid very controversial omissions) then you are forced to give juniors more leeway generally because the evidence on their actual playing strength is typically less clear. However if you do that when there is a single rule for all you can get accused of being junior-biased when you're not. Better, I think, to have a rule specifically for juniors so that people can call the rules junior-biased instead of the selectors. :lol:


Juniors are more likely to have the required evidence to show that they should be included in the tournament, but they should have to show evidence of the same amount, quality, quantity of an adult. I don't think the age of the applicant should even enter the consideration of whether a player is included or not.
I have absolutely no evidence to support this but it seems a possibility that allowing a player who was not strong enough into the tournament could have a discouraging effect not an encouraging effect on the player.
Your point about taking the pressure of the selectors is an interesting one but not necessarily correct as I read the By-Laws. While the by-law could be read that the sufficient standard clause is lower that being of equivalent proffiency it does not absolutely state that. If the selectors are not instructed as to what a sufficient standard is then the selectors either together or independently have to decide what sufficient standard means. If they choose to except players who are a bit weaker just because they are juniors then the <b>selectors</b> not the By-law are being biased towards juniors.

Scott

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 06:21 PM
Juniors are more likely to have the required evidence to show that they should be included in the tournament, but they should have to show evidence of the same amount, quality, quantity of an adult. I don't think the age of the applicant should even enter the consideration of whether a player is included or not.

What I was getting at is that for a lot of juniors it is hard to judge their strength accurately because they are improving so fast (but are also often erratic). That is rarely the case with adults.


I have absolutely no evidence to support this but it seems a possibility that allowing a player who was not strong enough into the tournament could have a discouraging effect not an encouraging effect on the player.

I totally agree. That is why a junior must be "of sufficient standard". I would not vote to let someone in unless I reckoned they were good enough to be competitive and get a few wins. However I don't remember a case of someone let in under this rule not being competitive.


Your point about taking the pressure of the selectors is an interesting one but not necessarily correct as I read the By-Laws. While the by-law could be read that the sufficient standard clause is lower that being of equivalent proffiency it does not absolutely state that. If the selectors are not instructed as to what a sufficient standard is then the selectors either together or independently have to decide what sufficient standard means. If they choose to except players who are a bit weaker just because they are juniors then the <b>selectors</b> not the By-law are being biased towards juniors.

I don't agree with that at all. Firstly the selectors can look at precedent and the precedents are that juniors who would not have qualified under the "equivalent standard" rule have been let in under this rule. Secondly just because an expression is vague does not mean the selectors are biased if they fail to interpret it as meaning the same thing as another expression just because it is not precisely defined. Indeed the fact that there are two different expressions very strongly implies that they are meant to be interpreted differently - otherwise what is the reason for having the improving junior clause in the bylaws at all? If Council meant them to mean the same thing it would have scrapped one long ago - these bylaws are reviewed quite frequently.

pballard
17-11-2005, 10:22 PM
So would I. Does Ian Rogers' "Australian Chess Into The Eighties" book shed light on the qualification standards existing in 1980? I don't have a copy but suspect it might.


I've looked at it: it doesn't mention the qualifications, nor the players' ratings. From the 1st round draw I can see that Hjorth, then 16, was 4th bottom seed, ahead of Farrell (1977 Aust Junior Champ), Depasquale (1979 SA Junior champ, probably rated in the 2000's) and Byrne (a WA junior or near-junior).

I also have the 1981-82 bulletins. Again no ratings. Bottom seed was Flitney (Tas champion?), then Goldsmith (rated in the 2000's in those days), Lovejoy and Solomon (had been around 2000 a year earlier so was probably around 2100).

(p.s. "2000's" means between 2000 and 2100)

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2005, 10:50 PM
Bottom seed was Flitney (Tas champion?),

Yes.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2005, 11:47 PM
The rating requirement for the 1973-74 Australian Championship was 2100. Automatic qualification also appiled to the current State Champions and the previous and current Australian Junior Champion. It did not however apply to the Australian Womens Champion.

I believe the 2100 limit remained in place throughout the 80's and 90's.

Oepty
18-11-2005, 04:31 PM
What I was getting at is that for a lot of juniors it is hard to judge their strength accurately because they are improving so fast (but are also often erratic). That is rarely the case with adults.


Very true about juniors but unless there is only a couple of tournaments to judge a junior on it should be possible to guage roughly at what strength they play at.



I totally agree. That is why a junior must be "of sufficient standard". I would not vote to let someone in unless I reckoned they were good enough to be competitive and get a few wins. However I don't remember a case of someone let in under this rule not being competitive.


My memory goes only back 2 Australian Championships and a vague idea about 2000. I simply wasn't involved in chess before that so I cannot really comment about what has happened previous to this.



I don't agree with that at all. Firstly the selectors can look at precedent and the precedents are that juniors who would not have qualified under the "equivalent standard" rule have been let in under this rule.


Okay, which juniors in which years have been let in without being of the standard of the minimum rating requirement of that year?



Secondly just because an expression is vague does not mean the selectors are biased if they fail to interpret it as meaning the same thing as another expression just because it is not precisely defined.


Quite true, it was unfair to call the selectors biased, sorry.



Indeed the fact that there are two different expressions very strongly implies that they are meant to be interpreted differently - otherwise what is the reason for having the improving junior clause in the bylaws at all? If Council meant them to mean the same thing it would have scrapped one long ago - these bylaws are reviewed quite frequently.


I have absolutely no idea why different expressions are used, but in all the times I have read the by-law I don't remember ever thinking it was meant to lower the standard required for juniors, hence what I said in my first post about the by-laws. There could be many reasons why the wording is different and without consulting either minutes of the meeting when the clause was put into the by-laws or people who were involved in the meeting is would be hard to know why it was put there.
Scott

pballard
18-11-2005, 08:48 PM
The rating requirement for the 1973-74 Australian Championship was 2100. Automatic qualification also appiled to the current State Champions and the previous and current Australian Junior Champion. It did not however apply to the Australian Womens Champion.

I believe the 2100 limit remained in place throughout the 80's and 90's.

My recollection is that there was some variation: one time quite a strict cutoff with people expecting to be in the championships and being turned away (1984 I think) which caused some controversy, followed (1986 or 1988?) by quite a loose cutoff - and that also being controversial.

(BTW I wasn't at either but that's what I heard/read at the time).

Which goes to show that it's hard to keep everyone happy.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2005, 10:36 PM
Okay, which juniors in which years have been let in without being of the standard of the minimum rating requirement of that year?

The most recent examples are Sam Chow in 2001-2 and Ronald Yu in 2003-4. Both performed very competitively. I don't have the 2000 player list to hand and don't clearly recall who got in under that rule this year. Note that when Chow got in the cutoff was 2250. His FIDE rating was 130 points below the cutoff and his ACF 269 points below but he scored 5/11, beating an FM and drawing with two IMs and would have scored over 50% had he not lost to the bottom seed.

Alan Shore
19-11-2005, 01:01 AM
The most recent examples are Sam Chow in 2001-2 and Ronald Yu in 2003-4. Both performed very competitively. I don't have the 2000 player list to hand and don't clearly recall who got in under that rule this year. Note that when Chow got in the cutoff was 2250. His FIDE rating was 130 points below the cutoff and his ACF 269 points below but he scored 5/11, beating an FM and drawing with two IMs and would have scored over 50% had he not lost to the bottom seed.

I don't have a problem with the rest, but the part in bold is suffering from a 'what if' fallacy. ;)

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2005, 02:07 AM
I don't have a problem with the rest, but the part in bold is suffering from a 'what if' fallacy. ;)

You're right actually. Also he would have needed a win to be over 50% and a win vs Stojic would have given him tougher Swiss system opposition in subsequent rounds and deprived him of an easy last round opponent (ie me). That loss however wasn't representative of his play in the tournament generally - basically he succumbed to the common strong-junior-loses-to-weaker-junior phenomenon. The bulletin suggested he didn't take the game seriously enough.

Oepty
19-11-2005, 11:17 AM
The most recent examples are Sam Chow in 2001-2 and Ronald Yu in 2003-4. Both performed very competitively. I don't have the 2000 player list to hand and don't clearly recall who got in under that rule this year. Note that when Chow got in the cutoff was 2250. His FIDE rating was 130 points below the cutoff and his ACF 269 points below but he scored 5/11, beating an FM and drawing with two IMs and would have scored over 50% had he not lost to the bottom seed.

Okay, of those two examples Ronald Yu would have almost certainly been able to play even if the junior clause had no been in existance. He had had some very strong performances. I have no doubt in my mind he had shown himself to be of at least 2150 strength.
As far as Chow goes I am not so sure as to what his form had been just before the championships. Quotings ratings though proves nothing, the players applying are surely arguing that their rating should be disregarded.

Have you got any other examples of players who have been let in who had no chance of being let in under the equivalent proffiency provision?

Scott

Trizza
19-11-2005, 03:19 PM
Although Ronald Yu's ACF rating was 2019, he had a FIDE rating over 2250 - would this be relevant for the decision?

The 2000 tournament in Mingara had only 16 players. Some (possibly) interesting numbers:

Zong-Yuan Zhao (1955): =2nd 8.5/11
David Smerdon (2140) but already an IM: =4th 6/11
Kuan-Kuan Tian (1894): =4th 6/11
Peter Jovanovic (1692): 14th 3.5/11, though there was a win against Canfell.

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2005, 03:26 PM
Have you got any other examples of players who have been let in who had no chance of being let in under the equivalent proffiency provision?

I agree that Yu would probably have been given the benefit of the doubt under the "equivalent proficiency" rule because of his stellar form at the time (which led to him being controversially selected ahead of Chow).

I'm not aware of anything that would have justified Chow's selection under that rule in 2001-2 - although I should point out that some of the "equivalent proficiency" selections that year were very lenient. I do not think Chow would have had much chance of getting in under a normal interpretation of "equivalent proficiency".

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2005, 03:33 PM
Although Ronald Yu's ACF rating was 2019, he had a FIDE rating over 2250 - would this be relevant for the decision?

It would have been taken into account under the "equivalent proficiency" rule but would not automatically qualify him.


Peter Jovanovic (1692): 14th 3.5/11, though there was a win against Canfell.

Was Jovanovic ACT champion at the time?

Trizza
19-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Was Jovanovic ACT champion at the time?

No. He was Australian U/12 Champion.

The following is pure speculation. With so few players maybe the organisers were very lenient and wanting to avoid a bye, granted Peter a late entry to the tournament. If so it didn't work because there was a withdrawal after 2 rounds.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2005, 03:57 PM
Although Ronald Yu's ACF rating was 2019, he had a FIDE rating over 2250 - would this be relevant for the decision?

The 2000 tournament in Mingara had only 16 players. Some (possibly) interesting numbers:

Zong-Yuan Zhao (1955): =2nd 8.5/11
David Smerdon (2140) but already an IM: =4th 6/11
Kuan-Kuan Tian (1894): =4th 6/11
Peter Jovanovic (1692): 14th 3.5/11, though there was a win against Canfell.The rating cutoff for the 1999-2000 Australian Championship was still 2100.
Smerdon therefore was over the cut-off. He was however also the 1999 Australian Junior Champion.
Kuan-Kuan Tian was the 1999 NSW Champion and qualified via that criteria.

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2005, 05:29 PM
No. He was Australian U/12 Champion.

The following is pure speculation. With so few players maybe the organisers were very lenient and wanting to avoid a bye, granted Peter a late entry to the tournament. If so it didn't work because there was a withdrawal after 2 rounds.

If that's the case Jovanovic may have been admitted under the "one otherwise ineligible player" rule and not the improving junior rule.

For his rating, even for a junior, his score was rather good.

shaun
19-11-2005, 06:46 PM
No. He was Australian U/12 Champion.

The following is pure speculation. With so few players maybe the organisers were very lenient and wanting to avoid a bye, granted Peter a late entry to the tournament. If so it didn't work because there was a withdrawal after 2 rounds.

This is pretty much on the mark, except that the organisers were being pretty leniant with regards anyone who wanted to play in the Championship. Peter applied under the "improving junior" provisions, and was accepted, not so much as to avoid a bye, but so as to beef up the numbers overall.
What I guess is improtant to realise is that in some years the ACF has left it up to the organisers to make decisions, which they then rubber stamp, while in other years they take a more active interest in enforcing their own rules. Therefore whether borderline cases make it in or not often depends on good luck and timing.

Oepty
19-11-2005, 09:20 PM
I agree that Yu would probably have been given the benefit of the doubt under the "equivalent proficiency" rule because of his stellar form at the time (which led to him being controversially selected ahead of Chow).

I'm not aware of anything that would have justified Chow's selection under that rule in 2001-2 - although I should point out that some of the "equivalent proficiency" selections that year were very lenient. I do not think Chow would have had much chance of getting in under a normal interpretation of "equivalent proficiency".

I tried to find some of Chows performances from that period but he didn't play in the World Youth as far as I could tell and not much in the Box Hill archives either, except for his win against Gluzman that everybody probably remembers from late 2000. I accept unless any other evidence that he was let in under the improving junior clause when he would not have been accepted any other way.
Scott

Oepty
19-11-2005, 09:25 PM
What I guess is improtant to realise is that in some years the ACF has left it up to the organisers to make decisions, which they then rubber stamp, while in other years they take a more active interest in enforcing their own rules. Therefore whether borderline cases make it in or not often depends on good luck and timing.

Interesting. I would have thought it is fairly obvious that there should be at least some input from outside the organising committee to stop organisers just trying to maximise there revenue from entry fees. For 2003-4 George Howard was cheif organiser and on the selection committee but was out numbered by 2 other selectors which might actually be a good balance. A number of players where rejected by that committee, one who eventually played anyway to remove the bye after a late withdrawal.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2005, 10:31 PM
I tried to find some of Chows performances from that period but he didn't play in the World Youth as far as I could tell and not much in the Box Hill archives either, except for his win against Gluzman that everybody probably remembers from late 2000. I accept unless any other evidence that he was let in under the improving junior clause when he would not have been accepted any other way.For those that applied for the 1998 Championship I provided rating reports to the selectors.
No reports were requested by the selectors for the 2000 championship.
No reports were requested by the selectors (ACF Executive) for the 2002 Championship.
Rating reports were provided to the selectors for the 2004 Championship.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2005, 10:48 PM
My recollection is that there was some variation: one time quite a strict cutoff with people expecting to be in the championships and being turned away (1984 I think) which caused some controversy, followed (1986 or 1988?) by quite a loose cutoff - and that also being controversial.Correct the 2100 limit was strictly enforced in the 1983-1984 Championship.
At the start of 1985 the regulations stated that the top 32 players would be allowed to play, however it was later decided that the limit would be 36.
For the 1988 Championship the regulations stated that there were 36 places available. Two were reserved for juniors. The other 34 would go to the top 34 entries. This was the last Australian Championship of 13 rounds.

For the 1990 Championship it was back to the 2100 rating cutoff. 5 juniors, 2 of who were the were the current and previous junior champions were admitted who were lower than 2100. Two adults were also admitted who were below the 2100 cutoff.

For the 1992 Championship the 2100 cutoff was in place. Also automatically included were the State Champions and the Australian Junior Champions. It was stated that others may be invited.

The same conditions applied for the 1994 Championship.

For 1996 the cutoff was 2100. Also automatically included were the previous Australian Champion, the previous winner of the Major, the winners of the two previous Australian juniors and one person nominated by each State Chess Association who is, in the opinion of the ACF Council, ordinarily resident in that State, if that State would not otherwise have a person in the Australian Chess Championship.
Players under 2100 who applied could be admitted if deemed to be of an equivalent level of proficiency by the ACF Council.

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:43 PM
Correct (snip).

I found this post highly informative :clap: Would you have figures on the 1998 field, Bill, with a list of the reserves? I am sure the 1998 tournament field was interesting. The 2000 field was also highly unusual, since the event was a really weak one.

Do you know who lobbied for the changes in structure to the entry criteria post 80's. My bet would be, Jammo. Was there any 'official" acf debate on the new criteria?

cheers Fg7

Oepty
20-11-2005, 03:51 PM
Bill, Thankyou for all this information, very interesting.


Correct the 2100 limit was strictly enforced in the 1983-1984 Championship.
At the start of 1985 the regulations stated that the top 32 players would be allowed to play, however it was later decided that the limit would be 36.
For the 1988 Championship the regulations stated that there were 36 places available. Two were reserved for juniors. The other 34 would go to the top 34 entries. This was the last Australian Championship of 13 rounds.

Brian and Lee Jones played in the 1988 Championships and I think they might have been unrated. How where they able to play?



For the 1990 Championship it was back to the 2100 rating cutoff. 5 juniors, 2 of who were the were the current and previous junior champions were admitted who were lower than 2100. Two adults were also admitted who were below the 2100 cutoff.

Under what rules were the players under the rating limit allowed to play?



For the 1992 Championship the 2100 cutoff was in place. Also automatically included were the State Champions and the Australian Junior Champions. It was stated that others may be invited.

The same conditions applied for the 1994 Championship.

For 1996 the cutoff was 2100. Also automatically included were the previous Australian Champion, the previous winner of the Major, the winners of the two previous Australian juniors and one person nominated by each State Chess Association who is, in the opinion of the ACF Council, ordinarily resident in that State, if that State would not otherwise have a person in the Australian Chess Championship.
Players under 2100 who applied could be admitted if deemed to be of an equivalent level of proficiency by the ACF Council.

Does this mean the first time the winner of the previous major was allowed to play was in 1996? If so, why not before?

Scott

Watto
21-11-2005, 08:52 AM
Greg Hjorth no longer plays rated tournament chess. It could be argued that letting him into the Australain chess so young actually contributed to this burn out.

Ian has already pointed out that Hjorth didn't really suffer from burnout but turned his major attention to other fields. Thought I'd add for people's interest, that even though Hjorth's a Professor of Mathematics at UCLA, he does still play in rated tournament chess over in the US. He played in a FIDE rated tournament as recently as this October. Has a rating of 2378.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2005, 06:11 PM
Brian and Lee Jones played in the 1988 Championships and I think they might have been unrated. How where they able to play?On re-reading the advert for the 1988 event I notice it mentions it is limited to 36 places. However it then states "From this it can be deduced that the higher rated, the better the chance to make it into the top division". From this it would seem that a players rating may not have been the totally deciding factor.
As for Brian and Lee they were both unrated as of the Dec 1987 ACF Rating list. Perhaps their BCF Gradings were taken into account. When Brian appeared on the April 1998 list his rating was 2181 and Lee's was 1946.

Under what rules were the players under the rating limit allowed to play?Goldsmith rated 1993 on the Dec 1989 list was let in as the SA Champion. David Stephson rated 2076 was admitted as the QLD rep. I cannot explain what that actually meant as both Solomon and Laird played and were from Queensland.
The selection committee for this event was Phil Viner, Brian Jones, Tim Reilly, and Jonathan Mendel. Given Reilly and Jones played in the event then having them as selectors would seem undesirable as it could lead to claims of conflict of interest.
The juniors admitted were Colin Davis (2019), Lee Jones (1985), Malcolm Stephens (1931), Adam Hanieh (1932) and Peter Cotton (1834). Note Peter Cotton was 1989 Australian Junior Champion and Lee Jones was the 1988 Australian Junior Champion.

Does this mean the first time the winner of the previous major was allowed to play was in 1996? If so, why not before?No idea but it was the first time I saw it explicitly mentioned.

shaun
21-11-2005, 07:31 PM
David Stephson rated 2076 was admitted as the QLD rep. I cannot explain what that actually meant as both Solomon and Laird played and were from Queensland.
In those days the wording of the state qualification clause did not specify "State Champion" and instead allowed state associations to nominate a player as it's "official representative". While some may read this a strongly suggesting that the State Champion be the nominee (including myself), not all states followed this "suggestion". NSW did nominate their State Champion when this rule was in effect (even if they qualified by rating), but Queensland (and possibly other states), used it as a backdoor way of sneaking in another player who would not have qualified by normal means. As a result the ACF changed the rule, but to something that was probably just as stupid.

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Ian has already pointed out that Hjorth didn't really suffer from burnout but turned his major attention to other fields. Thought I'd add for people's interest, that even though Hjorth's a Professor of Mathematics at UCLA, he does still play in rated tournament chess over in the US. He played in a FIDE rated tournament as recently as this October. Has a rating of 2378.

Ok I am sort of refuted here in Greg's case. I didn't know that GH still played or was aware of the possible motivations behind his apparent lack of enthusiasm for chess.

But, I am still uncertain about the burn out effect. Recently Victoria has seen the retirement of Zhigen Wilson-Lin, after only two years of tournament chess. No doubt similar to other talented junior cases. My question is this....Are we pushing kids in to hitting walls earlier then they need to be? Does a 12 year old really need to have "elite" pressure, placed on them at such a young age? Shouldn't we allow them to grow at a pace that is similar to everybody else?

cheers Fg7

Mischa
21-11-2005, 08:12 PM
Ok I am sort of refuted here in Greg's case. I didn't know that GH still played or was aware of the possible motivations behind his apparent lack of enthusiasm for chess.

But, I am still uncertain about the burn out effect. Recently Victoria has seen the retirement of Zhigen Wilson-Lin, after only two years of tournament chess. No doubt similar to other talented junior cases. My question is this....Are we pushing kids in to hitting walls earlier then they need to be? Does a 12 year old really need to have "elite" pressure, placed on them at such a young age? Shouldn't we allow them to grow at a pace that is similar to everybody else?

cheers Fg7


I am also seriously considering whether I will continue the whole chess scene with James...not to say that he is in the same league

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 08:36 PM
I am also seriously considering whether I will continue the whole chess scene with James...not to say that he is in the same league

In my experience, there is a right and wrong way to approach it. The right way is to concentrate on having fun,getting to know other kids, enjoying the travel etc. The wrong way is to focus on results, just let them happen. For some strange reason I seem to be alone in he opinion that kids ought to play down instead of up. I believe kids need to win under 1600 tournaments and stuff. I believe they ought to saviour those moments.

I remember going to Doeberl one year and being about 1400 and playing in the appropriate section and having a great time, while this "talented" Victorian junior, who was about 1300 at the time played in the open and did not win a game. That same junior gave up chess a few years later, no doubt, encouraged by his lack of success. Why did his coach encourage him to play up, when he could have gained more confidence by playing down? What were his memories of chess?

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
21-11-2005, 08:39 PM
For some strange reason I seem to be alone in he opinion that kids ought to play down instead of up. I believe kids need to win under 1600 tournaments and stuff. I believe they ought to saviour those moments.
i do concur with this. Also being one of the top seeds in a tournament brings about a different kind of pressure from expectation.

Mischa
21-11-2005, 08:44 PM
but Garvin you are still talking pressure
Why pressure an 11 year old kid at all?
If it is not fun.............
Did you have a hobby as a young kid? Were YOU pressured to win?
The whole political "bitchiness' is what is convincing me to withdraw
Not the winning or the losing .....just the whole shit

ursogr8
21-11-2005, 08:54 PM
<snip>For some strange reason I seem to be alone in he opinion that kids ought to play down instead of up. I believe kids need to win under 1600 tournaments and stuff. I believe they ought to saviour those moments.

<snip>

cheers Fg7

No you are not, Gungadin.
Have you so quickly forgotten my posts on this years Doeberl, where the logic of playing for the U1600 mammoth $ was rather attractive.
And,as I have already pointed out to the chagrined spelling-corrector,.....you have 60 years to win the Championship but maybe only 1 or 2 to win the Junior.

starter

(late edit...I see he has just logged into the bb and reminds me of his handle).

Mischa
21-11-2005, 09:11 PM
james played his level many times
Mostly he did NOT play up

Mischa
21-11-2005, 09:12 PM
Actually did he ever play up?
Oops..once at least I remember

Garvinator
21-11-2005, 09:21 PM
but Garvin you are still talking pressure the sport will always entail pressure, I dont think much can be done about that.


Did you have a hobby as a young kid? Were YOU pressured to win? i always have been a very competitive person, but i wasnt pressured to win, it was my own personal goals and wanting to do well that created the pressure.

The whole political "bitchiness' is what is convincing me to withdraw
Not the winning or the losing .....just the whole shit
exactly, so it has nothing to do with the sport of chess, but to do with politics and the crap of cv etc. Unfortunately, most other sports arent much better in terms of politics, but as my signature says, i have never seen ppl argue so hard over so little in reality.

Mischa
21-11-2005, 09:25 PM
well it is losing me and so therefore James...but I don't think it is the end of the world for either of us...nor for Australian chess! :)

Alan Shore
21-11-2005, 09:56 PM
Have you so quickly forgotten my posts on this years Doeberl, where the logic of playing for the U1600 mammoth $ was rather attractive.

I've never known you to let an opportunity pass to take a subtle jibe at me starter. ;)

ursogr8
21-11-2005, 10:34 PM
I've never known you to let an opportunity pass to take a subtle jibe at me starter. ;)

Actually, BD, I was referring to the Mexicans who could have played under 1600 but were not combatants of yours on the day.
I thought you made a good choice.

Btw, is jibe something to do with Mirrors?

starter

Alan Shore
21-11-2005, 10:51 PM
Actually, BD, I was referring to the Mexicans who could have played under 1600 but were not combatants of yours on the day.
I thought you made a good choice.

I was quite certain of that.. but I still wouldn't have put it past you. ;)

jenni
21-11-2005, 11:18 PM
Recently Victoria has seen the retirement of Zhigen Wilson-Lin, after only two years of tournament chess. No doubt similar to other talented junior cases. My question is this....Are we pushing kids in to hitting walls earlier then they need to be? Does a 12 year old really need to have "elite" pressure, placed on them at such a young age? Shouldn't we allow them to grow at a pace that is similar to everybody else?

cheers Fg7

From e-mails I exchanged with Zhigen in September he is still quite passionate about chess. I believe it was more a parental decision that school was more important.

It is very hard to know at what point you are "pushing" a child and at what point you are helping their natural talent to develop.

I do not believe chess as a whole excessively pushes kids. e.g Ergas requires them to do 3 or 4 non compulsory homework tasks plus take part in a 6 day camp. A kid at the AIS in an elite gymnastics program would be expected to do many hours of practise a day.

Of course there are individual cases where juniors with insane parents are pushed to the point that they hate chess and want to stop as soon as they are old enough to stand up to the parents, but I don't believe this is the norm in Australia.

As a parent you have to put their future first. We have tried to balance school, chess, social life and other co-curricular activities (basketball, swimming, violin, etc). No doubt to the detriment of our spawn's chess performance....

jenni
21-11-2005, 11:24 PM
For some strange reason I seem to be alone in he opinion that kids ought to play down instead of up. I believe kids need to win under 1600 tournaments and stuff. I believe they ought to saviour those moments.


Obviously you are not - Rafizadeh put a long post on this subject a month or so ago and others including myself agreed with him. There are occasions when playing up can be beneficial e.g. Tamzin wants to play in the Major not the Minor at Deoberl next year, because she is sick of playing other ACT juniors in the Minor. It is her choice though.

It is all about choice. I spoke to Sally Yu at Ergas and she told me she was playing the U18 in Brisbane. I made lots of clucking noises and tried to dangle Under 12 trophies under her nose, but she said she really enjoyed playing up and wanted to play the under 18. I also know kids for whom playing up is less stressful than playing in their own age group.

The important thing is to let the child make the choice as far as possible and not impose it because parent/coach thinks it is a good idea.

JohnH
22-11-2005, 06:39 AM
It is all about choice. . .
The important thing is to let the child make the choice as far as possible and not impose it because parent/coach thinks it is a good idea.

I agree that it's all about the child making the choice. Sometimes situational issues will mean a coach will strongly encourage a child to 'play up'. This is particularly the case when the child is representing Australia overseas. In this instance the child needs the strongest games possible as they will be facing tough opposition over there. Also, if for example, the child has already won the Under 12 title, there is really no point remaining in that category and it is probably best to 'play up'.

There is a fine line to draw here. The child does need a sense of achievment, but chess development requires tough games. If the child is 'smashed' all the time they will give up the game, but unless challenged by strong players development is arrested. That's why the ultimate decision maker should be with the child.

Garvinator
22-11-2005, 07:04 AM
Also, if for example, the child has already won the Under 12 title, there is really no point remaining in that category and it is probably best to 'play up'.
another misnomer, while sometimes this can be the case.
For example, I am sure that Moulthun Ly will have a much more difficult time defending the Australian Junior Championship he won than the first time around.
This would be the case even if he was just playing the junior and not the championship in the afternoon :eek:

Title defences are almost always much more difficult to achieve.

pax
22-11-2005, 08:23 AM
The whole political "bitchiness' is what is convincing me to withdraw
Not the winning or the losing .....just the whole shit

If bitchiness gets to you, then I strongly suggest not reading this BB :)

pax
22-11-2005, 08:26 AM
For some strange reason I seem to be alone in he opinion that kids ought to play down instead of up. I believe kids need to win under 1600 tournaments and stuff. I believe they ought to saviour those moments.

How about we just let the kids play where they want to? Without pressure from coaches, parents, or random BBers they've never met to play up or down or inside-out??

Garvinator
22-11-2005, 09:06 AM
How about we just let the kids play where they want to? Without pressure from coaches, parents, or random BBers they've never met to play up or down or inside-out??
because that would be too easy ;) :whistle:

jenni
22-11-2005, 09:45 AM
Title defences are almost always much more difficult to achieve.

Too true - even David Smerdon failed in his title defence in Canberra in 2001, where Zong-Yuan Zhao snatched it from under his nose in the last round....

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2005, 12:32 PM
another misnomer, while sometimes this can be the case.
For example, I am sure that Moulthun Ly will have a much more difficult time defending the Australian Junior Championship he won than the first time around.
This would be the case even if he was just playing the junior and not the championship in the afternoon :eek:

Actually I think he would otherwise have a much easier time defending the junior than when he was somewhat fortunate to win it, because he is just a so much stronger player now.

JohnH
22-11-2005, 12:43 PM
another misnomer, while sometimes this can be the case.
For example, I am sure that Moulthun Ly will have a much more difficult time defending the Australian Junior Championship he won than the first time around.
This would be the case even if he was just playing the junior and not the championship in the afternoon :eek:

Title defences are almost always much more difficult to achieve.

It's not a 'misnomer'. It's frequently more of a case of 'been there, done that' and now time for the next challenge.

It's difficult to know whether or not a title defense by Moulthun Ly would be more or less difficult for him than the first win. There are too many unknown variables such as who is participating, current form, luck of the draw etc..

jenni
22-11-2005, 01:29 PM
It's not a 'misnomer'. It's frequently more of a case of 'been there, done that' and now time for the next challenge.

It's difficult to know whether or not a title defense by Moulthun Ly would be more or less difficult for him than the first win. There are too many unknown variables such as who is participating, current form, luck of the draw etc..

Moulthun has had an exceptionally good year and I agree with Kevin that he is a much stronger player than when he won the title via a playoff with 3 of them tied for first.

However the Aus Juniors is a very stressful tournament (not that I think Moulthun stresses - he always seems very relaxed to me). With all the prep that goes on by coaches, results do not always go the way they seem likely to go on paper. Makes it fun for parents as there are always upsets and unusual results. :) e.g George Xie never had much success at the Aus Juniors, while still being able to whip up 3 IM norms in no time at all....

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2005, 01:38 PM
There is always that unpredictable element there - that no matter how good they are, almost any junior is susceptible to losing to much weaker juniors.

firegoat7
22-11-2005, 01:43 PM
How about we just let the kids play where they want to? Without pressure from coaches, parents, or random BBers they've never met to play up or down or inside-out??

Well, you can let your children do what they want, but as most parents and coaches know, children need guidance and support. They are often the worst judges of what they want.

But I do agree, pressure ought not to be placed upon them. Which is the point of my original comment. Chess ought to be fun, not stressful for kids.

Finally, what do you mean by pressure from BBs? I fail to understand the context of such a statement. :hand:

cheers Fg7

jenni
22-11-2005, 02:41 PM
well it is losing me and so therefore James...but I don't think it is the end of the world for either of us...nor for Australian chess! :)
Yes sometimes you just have to do what you feel is right for your family unit. We moved from Netball to Basketball because of the bitchiness and it was the best thing we ever did. I've had 3 kids play basketball and the teams (and parents) have always been great.

Maybe a career change to Bridge?

pax
22-11-2005, 02:42 PM
Finally, what do you mean by pressure from BBs? I fail to understand the context of such a statement. :hand:


Well perhaps not so much pressure as criticism.

The last thing these kids need is people on this BB whom they may not have even met saying "I really think Joe Bloggs should be playing in the U12" or "Why do they let Jimmy Smith play in the championship when he hasn't even won the Juniors". Let them make their own decisions, advised by parents and coaches perhaps, but certainly not by us.

And I am referring not so much to this thread, but to others which have been more pointed in criticising the decisions of these kids.

jenni
22-11-2005, 03:07 PM
well it is losing me and so therefore James...but I don't think it is the end of the world for either of us...nor for Australian chess! :)
I see James has just entered the Aus Juniors - so we are not losing him for a few months yet. I usually find Queensland a very friendly environment, so you might make new friends and have a revival. ;)

Alan Shore
22-11-2005, 04:11 PM
Maybe a career change to Bridge?

Or perhaps to Texas Holdem Poker, as is the style these days.

Watto
22-11-2005, 04:12 PM
Or perhaps to Texas Holdem Poker, as is the style these days.

He might keep secretly studying chess... :-)

Garvinator
22-11-2005, 05:28 PM
Or perhaps to Texas Holdem Poker, as is the style these days.
sure no problem, James can just pull up a chair at his nearest casino ;) ;) :whistle:

jenni
22-11-2005, 06:07 PM
sure no problem, James can just pull up a chair at his nearest casino ;) ;) :whistle:

That's a point - maybe we'll see a flood of juniors trying to duck out to the casino. :eek:

Mischa
22-11-2005, 09:33 PM
funny you should say that

Mischa
22-11-2005, 09:34 PM
ummm I did not enter James
It was done to give him an option by someone who cares....and thinks his mum may not be the one to decide right now

Garvinator
23-11-2005, 02:45 AM
That's a point - maybe we'll see a flood of juniors trying to duck out to the casino. :eek:
well it is kinda 'just down the road' ;)

Garvinator
01-12-2005, 01:25 AM
might be a big non issue even if he didnt win the aus juniors as it is a good chance that he will be over 2150 on december 1. This quote refers to Moulthun Ly
ohhh i was so close- 2148. He would get in under the equal proficency rule if not Australian Junior Champion.
Therefore wouldnt need some backdoor junior rule (trolling :whistle: )

Igor_Goldenberg
12-12-2005, 11:14 AM
As I understand, 2150 is a limit that can be tinkered with by commitee.
However, there is another consideration whivh is often overlooked.

Australian championship is one of a very few tournaments with IM norm. One of the requirements is that your opponents have a rating of at least 2100 (otherwise the game does not count). Also 2100 FIDE is easier to get then 2150 ACF. Based on that I'd put in another qualifier - if you are under 2150 ACF, but over 2100 FIDE, you can still be considered.

pax
12-12-2005, 01:31 PM
Australian championship is one of a very few tournaments with IM norm. One of the requirements is that your opponents have a rating of at least 2100 (otherwise the game does not count). Also 2100 FIDE is easier to get then 2150 ACF. Based on that I'd put in another qualifier - if you are under 2150 ACF, but over 2100 FIDE, you can still be considered.

I think you have misunderstood the FIDE regulations:



1.46 Rating of opponents.
For an example of percentage rounding see 1.44.
1.46a Maximum 22% of the opponents shall be unrated.
1.46b The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used.
1.46c For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor) for the opponents shall be as follows:


* Grandmaster title - 2250
* International Master title - 2100
* Woman Grandmaster title - 2050
* Woman International Master title - 1900



1.46c1 No more than two opponents shall have their rating raised to this adjusted rating floor. Where more than two opponents are below the floor, the rating of the lowest two opponents shall be raised.

1.46d Unrated opponents not covered by 1.46b shall be considered to be rated at the rating floor level. In 2005, it is 1600.

What this means is that two opponents (unrated or rated) can have their ratings *raised* to 2100 for the purposes of the norm calculation (this is to prevent unrated or low rated players from unduly skewing the average rating for calculation purposes.

Under current arrangements, very few players rated under 2100 are admitted anyway (this year it will be three) so it's basically not an issue.

bobby1972
12-12-2005, 03:10 PM
Keep the weak out.out i say he he he

Igor_Goldenberg
12-12-2005, 03:23 PM
OK pax, I stand corrected, objection withdrawn.

Oepty
14-12-2005, 10:33 AM
Kevin. I notice one player seems to have been moved from the Championships to Major field on the champs website. Does this mean some decisions have been made about players eligibility to play?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2005, 02:36 PM
Kevin. I notice one player seems to have been moved from the Championships to Major field on the champs website. Does this mean some decisions have been made about players eligibility to play?
Scott

No rulings have been made by the selection committee as yet. I would assume the player was transferred because he elected to play in the Major.

Oepty
14-12-2005, 03:25 PM
No rulings have been made by the selection committee as yet. I would assume the player was transferred because he elected to play in the Major.

Okay, Thank you

Alan Shore
17-12-2005, 05:20 PM
When are these rulings going to be made, very soon surely?

I see a couple more dodgy entries in top division.. I mean, van Renen, lol, as if.

Garvinator
17-12-2005, 07:10 PM
When are these rulings going to be made, very soon surely?

According to the pdf entry information, the champ field will be announced on 19 December 2005.

Players who dont make the champ field will automatically be in the major.


I see a couple more dodgy entries in top division.. I mean, van Renen, lol, as if. dont write anything off ;)

Vlad
19-12-2005, 09:51 AM
No rulings have been made by the selection committee as yet. I would assume the player was transferred because he elected to play in the Major.

My understanding the selection is to be announced today. Could we possibly see the first round draw as well? Thanks.

pax
19-12-2005, 10:54 AM
My understanding the selection is to be announced today. Could we possibly see the first round draw as well? Thanks.

Well you could work that out for yourself easily enough - it is just a Swiss after all.

I doubt they will release an official first round draw a week before the event - too many things can change in that time!

pax
19-12-2005, 02:27 PM
I note that there are more changes on the webpage:
http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm

Van Renen and Lee Jones are now listed in the Reserves. Pyke, Bird and Moylan remain in the Championship.

I note that the Championship list no longer says "subject to selection criteria", so I assume this to be the final list (number: exactly 30)?

jenni
19-12-2005, 02:44 PM
I note that there are more changes on the webpage:
http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm

Van Renen and Lee Jones are now listed in the Reserves. Pyke, Bird and Moylan remain in the Championship.

I note that the Championship list no longer says "subject to selection criteria", so I assume this to be the final list (number: exactly 30)?


Now that an improving adult (Pyke) is being allowed to play the Aus Champs, maybe the Victorians will stop whinging about improving juniors..... :lol:

pax
19-12-2005, 02:54 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:

Hah, I wouldn't bet on it :rolleyes:

Oepty
19-12-2005, 03:02 PM
I note that there are more changes on the webpage:
http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm

Van Renen and Lee Jones are now listed in the Reserves. Pyke, Bird and Moylan remain in the Championship.

I note that the Championship list no longer says "subject to selection criteria", so I assume this to be the final list (number: exactly 30)?

Lakner and Guthrie also remain in the Championship.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
19-12-2005, 03:09 PM
Lakner and Guthrie also remain in the Championship.
Scott

Have a little respect. Their FIDE rating is above 2200 (Guthrie 2251, to be precise). Does it account for anything?

Rincewind
19-12-2005, 03:27 PM
Have a little respect. Their FIDE rating is above 2200 (Guthrie 2251, to be precise). Does it account for anything?

I think Freddy's observation was motivated by state pride, not disrespect.

Vlad
19-12-2005, 03:46 PM
Well you could work that out for yourself easily enough - it is just a Swiss after all.

I doubt they will release an official first round draw a week before the event - too many things can change in that time!

Am I right that 1 plays with 16, 2 plays with 17, 3 plays with 18 and so on?

Brian_Jones
19-12-2005, 04:29 PM
Am I right that 1 plays with 16, 2 plays with 17, 3 plays with 18 and so on?

Yes, the 30 players the the Championship are already listed in FIDE rating sequence. But the Reserves need to be listed in FIDE rating sequence to work out their possible pairings.

Bill Gletsos
19-12-2005, 04:58 PM
Yes, the 30 players the the Championship are already listed in FIDE rating sequence. But the Reserves need to be listed in FIDE rating sequence to work out their possible pairings.As noted on the official entry forms:

The October 2005 FIDE ratings list will be used to determine seedings in the championship event. For all other events, the appropriate ACF December 2005 ratings list will be used to determine seedings.