PDA

View Full Version : Championship field



pax
01-12-2005, 02:17 PM
With the first entry deadline passing today, we are starting to see the Australian Championship field taking shape.

I must say that so far, it looks very strong. So far entered are 5 GMs, 6 IMs, 9 FMs and one WIM. The 7 untitled players take numbers to a tidy 28. Nearly all of Australia's active top players are there. It looks to me as though it might be the strongest Championship in history - anyone able to verify?

Numbers also look pretty good a month out, with 84 in the main supporting events (not rapid or lightning) and 137 in junior events.

DoroPhil
01-12-2005, 08:38 PM
Lee Jones is in the championship, while Kevin Sheldrick is in the supporting event ?! Give me a break.

four four two
01-12-2005, 08:56 PM
Lee may have qualified on the basis of both his ACF and FIDE rating,still its a pity that someone of Sheldricks rating isnt playing in the championship.
Does anyone know if Sheldrick applied for the championship and was knocked back? :hmm: Maybe he's just trying to go for the money in the reserves? :hmm:

jenni
01-12-2005, 09:08 PM
I thought the list was still subject to ratification with final list to be announced on 19th Dec?

brett
01-12-2005, 09:12 PM
Lee may have qualified on the basis of both his ACF and FIDE rating,still its a pity that someone of Sheldricks rating isnt playing in the championship.
Does anyone know if Sheldrick applied for the championship and was knocked back? :hmm: Maybe he's just trying to go for the money in the reserves? :hmm:

I don't think anyone has been knocked back. All applications go on the list and then the selection committee will make their final decision

pax
01-12-2005, 09:27 PM
Lee may have qualified on the basis of both his ACF and FIDE rating,still its a pity that someone of Sheldricks rating isnt playing in the championship.

Are you saying that you think the rating cutoff is too high?

It's highly likely that he opted for the Major, but even if he didn't - how many rated games has he played in the last year? Or the last two?? It's a bit difficult to demonstrate equivalent proficiency if you haven't played in over a year.

brett
01-12-2005, 09:33 PM
Lee Jones is in the championship, while Kevin Sheldrick is in the supporting event ?! Give me a break.


I thought generally Sheldrick chooses to chase the money then play up in the higher division.

Alan Shore
01-12-2005, 09:42 PM
I thought generally Sheldrick chooses to chase the money then play up in the higher division.

That's not the nicest thing to say....

It's an u2150 cutoff, so he's going to enter the Major.. I actually encouraged him to play!

four four two
01-12-2005, 10:06 PM
Pax,you should know my position by now.

But if you have forgotten,let me state it again for you.

I disagree with the current cut off and think it should be lowered so as give ALL players who are within 100 points of the current cut off an oppurtunity to play against a strong field in a closed tournament.
Britain,a country with over 30 GM's, still allows mid 2100 players to play in their championship.They see it as good for the overall development of chess.
I cant see why a country as strong as Britain should follow this line of thinking and we shouldnt.We seem hell bent on making it as difficult as possible for players around the 2100 mark ,but under 2150 , to play against our top players.

Having said that,if we are going to stick with the CURRENT criteria,then that criteria should be applied equally whether they are a junior or not.
Under the current criteria it is easier for juniors to qualify for our national championship.In my opinion that is shortsighted,and treats certain adult players who are no weaker than these juniors as "second class" players.

pax
01-12-2005, 10:48 PM
I disagree with the current cut off and think it should be lowered so as give ALL players who are within 100 points of the current cut off an oppurtunity to play against a strong field in a closed tournament.
Britain,a country with over 30 GM's, still allows mid 2100 players to play in their championship.They see it as good for the overall development of chess.
I cant see why a country as strong as Britain should follow this line of thinking and we shouldnt.We seem hell bent on making it as difficult as possible for players around the 2100 mark ,but under 2150 , to play against our top players.

You have to draw the line somewhere. What about the mid 2000 players? Or the mid 1900 players?

The current system is good, because it results in a field of around 30 which is a good size for a genuinely competitive 11 round Swiss.

The British Championship is a very poor example. That tournament has massively deteriorated in recent years. The 2006 Australian Championship will in fact be a stronger event than the 2005 British! Where were those 30 GMs? They were not at the event that most of them regard as having degenerated into yet another monster Swiss.

brett
01-12-2005, 11:09 PM
That's not the nicest thing to say....

It's an u2150 cutoff, so he's going to enter the Major.. I actually encouraged him to play!

I didnt mean that as an insult. Sorry if you got that impression

Bereaved
02-12-2005, 12:00 AM
Hello everyone,

The choice of Chris Wallis as a starter for the Australian Championships is interesting to me in one regard; Did Chris ask to play in the event before he was announced as playing?

Does anyone know the sequence of events? I have read the Culture of Selection thread but if it mentioned how this state of affairs came about I don't remember, perhaps someone could point it out if so, elsewise would love to hear the story.

Wallis, Christopher: September 2005: ACF 2003; December 2005:ACF 2055


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

four four two
02-12-2005, 12:29 AM
Pax,do you regard 46 players as a monster swiss? :hmm:
Considering that was how many players they had this year.
This years British championship was one of the weakest for a number of years,it was won by Johnathon Rowson 2599,it was also one of the smallest fields for a number of years too.There are many reasons why Britains elite players dont play their championship,I would question whether the size of the field is one of them.

What about the mid 2000 players you say,well arent Wallis and Song in EXACTLY that category.Are you seriously trying to suggest they would be more competitive than some adults like Macavity or Sheldrick? :hmm:
As for drawing the line,the line seems to be flexible for juniors and not certain adults.

If you want to have a really competitive 11 round swiss,then you should make it a field of 20.But that of course would leave out most of the state champions and the current australian junior champion.

There are currently 28 entries for the Australian championship,do you think there would be a major dilution if there was 38? :hmm:

Garvinator
02-12-2005, 12:48 AM
and the current australian junior champion.

There are currently 28 entries for the Australian championship,do you think there would be a major dilution if there was 38? :hmm:
how does it leave out the current australian junior champion?

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2005, 12:51 AM
Wallis did indeed apply for inclusion in the Championship and was admitted by Council.

Lee Jones has not yet been ruled on - selection committee will be ruling on his application shortly. The reason Lee Jones has not been dealt with earlier as an urgent case is that the organisers have informed us that if he is not admitted to the Championsips he intends to play the Major. Therefore we have waited for this rating list for up to date data.

I'd just like to note that while I may from time to time comment on the procedures etc, I will not be making any comment here in support of or against any application I rule on as part of the selection committee.

four four two
02-12-2005, 01:02 AM
Gray,if there was only 20 people allowed into the australian championship,which would make it a very competitive tournament,then Ly wouldnt even come close to qualifying.

Garvinator
02-12-2005, 01:10 AM
Gray,if there was only 20 people allowed into the australian championship,which would make it a very competitive tournament,then Ly wouldnt even come close to qualifying.
:hmm: I do understand what you are saying, but looking at the current field and if based on acf rating, then Moulthun is actually 21st at the moment based on acf rating. So he is close ;)

four four two
02-12-2005, 01:21 AM
He is only 21st because a number of the stronger players are passing on Brisbane and are going to Queenstown instead.

Dont get me wrong Gray,I have nothing against Ly or any other junior for that matter.I just think selection should be based on playing strength and not age,Wallis and Song are qualifying because they are juniors.If they were 30+years old they could have easily found themselves being rejected for the australian championship. ;)

Bereaved
02-12-2005, 01:28 AM
.I just think selection should be based on playing strength and not age,Wallis and Song are qualifying because they are juniors.If they were 30+years old they could have easily found themselves being rejected for the australian championship. ;)


Or simply too dejected to bother being rejected and then feel upset about their entry being ageist-ly judged as opposed to those who were selected,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

pax
02-12-2005, 05:37 AM
He is only 21st because a number of the stronger players are passing on Brisbane and are going to Queenstown instead.


You create the misimpression that the Queenstown event is more popular than Brisbane. In fact, very few top Australian players are skipping Brisbane and going to Queenstown (I count 3 over 2300). Many more are going to Brisbane but not Queenstown, and more still are going only to Brisbane.

pax
02-12-2005, 05:45 AM
If you want to have a really competitive 11 round swiss,then you should make it a field of 20.But that of course would leave out most of the state champions and the current australian junior champion.

You have no idea what you are taking about. 20 is far too small for an 11 round swiss. You would have totally messed up pairings by the last round.

Garvinator
02-12-2005, 09:53 AM
He is only 21st because a number of the stronger players are passing on Brisbane and are going to Queenstown instead.

Dont get me wrong Gray,I have nothing against Ly or any other junior for that matter.I just think selection should be based on playing strength and not age,Wallis and Song are qualifying because they are juniors.If they were 30+years old they could have easily found themselves being rejected for the australian championship. ;)
have you actually read the whole thread and my thoughts on this entire matter??

pballard
02-12-2005, 10:16 AM
Is the championship field online somewhere?

four four two
02-12-2005, 10:57 AM
Pax,I dont think I was giving the impression that Queenstown was more popular for australian players than Brisbane. In an ideal world where all the australian players had both the time and money they would play in both.
Seeing as some players who are currently rated higher than Ly dont have both the time and money ,they have chosen to play in Queenstown rather than Brisbane.For some of those players it might have been a case of the oppurtunity to play chess in another country,there is also the fact that Queenstown has much better prize money.

For the record the australian players who are higher rated than Ly who have entered for Queenstown and not Brisbane so far are...

West,Froehlich,V Feldman,Reilly,Drummond,Brian Jones.

As for the 20 player field,I wasnt actually referring to this years current field.
If you had a 20 player field where the lowest rated player was FM BillJordan and the highest was Rogers ,would the last round pairings be totally out of whack? With the current field for this year,28 players,isnt Rogers likely to get a player around Bill's rating[2206] in the last round?

Gray,which thread are you referring to? This one ,or the culture of selection?

Peter there is a link to the web adresss for aus champs in the aus champs/junior section. ;)

Garvinator
02-12-2005, 11:00 AM
Gray,which thread are you referring to? This one ,or the culture of selection?
culture of selection

Ian Rout
02-12-2005, 11:12 AM
Is the championship field online somewhere?
Since nobody else wants to admit it:

http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm

Gringo
02-12-2005, 11:23 AM
Thx for being Blunt, Routy. :bandit:

Brian_Jones
02-12-2005, 12:51 PM
Lee Jones is in the championship, while Kevin Sheldrick is in the supporting event ?! Give me a break.

Seems to me that you have a biased opinion of Kevin Sheldrick over Lee Jones. What is this based on? How well do you know the players involved?

pax
02-12-2005, 02:28 PM
As for the 20 player field,I wasnt actually referring to this years current field.
If you had a 20 player field where the lowest rated player was FM BillJordan and the highest was Rogers ,would the last round pairings be totally out of whack? With the current field for this year,28 players,isnt Rogers likely to get a player around Bill's rating[2206] in the last round?

Sorry, what exactly do you think is good about having an event where the top seeds play bottom seeds in the last few rounds. Sort of takes any interest out of it don't you think?

Ian Rout
02-12-2005, 03:24 PM
One issue with a small field relative to number of rounds is that if you end up with a bye, through somebody dropping out at the last minute or somebody being a de facto bye (out of form or playing well below the general standard), about a third of the field can get the bye including people in contention for the title.

Another issue is just cost vs benefit. By having a twenty-player Swiss you have all the costs of a Swiss (people play different fields) without the benefit (allowing marginal cases in). If it's going to be chopped down to twenty I think you might as well go the whole way and have a twelve-player round robin.

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Lee Jones is in the championship, while Kevin Sheldrick is in the supporting event ?! Give me a break.

Tend to disagree with this assesment. I reckon Lee is stronger.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 03:41 PM
Lakner, Jay WA 2207 2145 (Presumed WA rep)

Jones, Lee FM NSW 2189 2054 (Rating??-Is Fide actually relevent?)

Norris, Damian QLD 2180 2084 (Rating- Again is Fide relevent?)
Booth, Stewart VIC 2179 2184 (should be in on rating)
Ly, Moulthun QLD 2162 2148 (current Oz junior champ)
Bird, Andrew NSW 2146 2105 (nsw rep)
Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055 (Improving junior- note did not go up as many points as M.Pyke in the last rating list- who has a higher rating?)
Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093 (Presumed womens rep? Is this true?)
Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073 (Improved even less then Wallis)
Obst, James SA 2012 2054 (Presumed SA rep)
Frame, Nigel TAS 1849 (Mickey mouse rep)


As usual the same story occurs. Nevertheless what will happen if Macavity applies?

cheers Fg7

Vlad
02-12-2005, 04:06 PM
Since nobody else wants to admit it:

http://www.*******2006.com/players.htm

It looks like a very impressive field. I can't understand the point of all this discussion. Everybody in the open looks good enough to me (except maybe for the last one). I wish i could take part in this competition. Well, maybe one day.:)

four four two
02-12-2005, 04:16 PM
Drug ,its not an OPEN. Its a championship,where you are invited based on certain criteria. ;)

bunta
02-12-2005, 04:27 PM
Is there any norms up for grabs for good playing performances? it is a massive event for australia attracting many strong players and a very strong playing field

pax
02-12-2005, 04:28 PM
>Lakner, Jay WA 2207 2145 (Presumed WA rep)

Is not WA Champion, but would certainly get in on equivalent proficiency (however he can also be nominated by WA given that they have no other rep).

>Jones, Lee FM NSW 2189 2054 (Rating??-Is Fide actually relevent?)

FIDE rating is not used in determining the rating cutoff, but may (presumably) be used in determining equivalent proficiency. In this case, Lee has maintained a FIDE rating of around 2200 over more than 50 games in 3 years. Presumably that's worth something.

> Norris, Damian QLD 2180 2084 (Rating- Again is Fide relevent?)
>Booth, Stewart VIC 2179 2184 (should be in on rating)

What do you mean *should* be?

>Ly, Moulthun QLD 2162 2148 (current Oz junior champ)
>Bird, Andrew NSW 2146 2105 (nsw rep)

Since the playoff hasn't happened yet (as far as I know), Bird would not be the NSW rep. But I cannot imagine that he would be turned down on the strength of his NSW Championship performance.

>Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055 (Improving junior- note did not go up as >many points as M.Pyke in the last rating list- who has a higher rating?)

Has gone up around 600 points since the last Championship. How far has Pykey improved in that time?

>Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093 (Presumed womens rep? Is this true?)

I don't believe that she is Australian Women's champion, so she would be subject to the equivalent proficiency criteria.

>Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073 (Improved even less then Wallis)

Has improved at least 250 points since the last Championship. That's more than any non-junior over 2000 I can think of.

>Obst, James SA 2012 2054 (Presumed SA rep)

Cannot be SA rep, as they already have a rep in Aaron Guthrie. Presumably Obst must also apply under improving junior provision (500 points since the last Championship, also has a solid case).

>Frame, Nigel TAS 1849 (Mickey mouse rep)

Tasmanian Champion. Has qualified. Nuff said.

pax
02-12-2005, 04:31 PM
Is there any norms up for grabs for good playing performances? it is a massive event for australia attracting many strong players and a very strong playing field

Certainly GM and IM norms are possible. There appear to be enough titled players in the field such that a player who achieves the performance rating (2600) for a GM title will also satisfy the other criteria (3 GMs, 50% titled players etc).

Jon

pballard
02-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Obst, James SA 2012 2054 (Presumed SA rep)

Cannot be SA rep, as they already have a rep in Aaron Guthrie. Presumably Obst must also apply under improving junior provision (500 points since the last Championship, also has a solid case).


Obst is the SA Champion.

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 06:24 PM
>Lakner, Jay WA 2207 2145 (Presumed WA rep)

Is not WA Champion, but would certainly get in on equivalent proficiency (however he can also be nominated by WA given that they have no other rep).



Personally, I am of the opinion that the WA players are over-rated. But, what can you do, he should play based on his ACF rating.



>Jones, Lee FM NSW 2189 2054 (Rating??-Is Fide actually relevent?)

FIDE rating is not used in determining the rating cutoff, but may (presumably) be used in determining equivalent proficiency. In this case, Lee has maintained a FIDE rating of around 2200 over more than 50 games in 3 years. Presumably that's worth something.



There is no FIDE criteria, so I think it is worth nothing for Australian players. While I think Lee is strong and would go well in the tournament, it is difficult to understand what he gets in on, except ACF rating.




> Norris, Damian QLD 2180 2084 (Rating- Again is Fide relevent?)
Same position as Lee, FIDE does not count.



>Bird, Andrew NSW 2146 2105 (nsw rep)

Since the playoff hasn't happened yet (as far as I know), Bird would not be the NSW rep. But I cannot imagine that he would be turned down on the strength of his NSW Championship performance.

According to the current criteria, his entry ought to be subject to whether he beats Fuller in a match. If he finishes second his N.S.W performance ought to mean nothing. However, should probably get a gurnsey based on his ACF rating.



>Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055 (Improving junior- note did not go up as >many points as M.Pyke in the last rating list- who has a higher rating?)

Has gone up around 600 points since the last Championship. How far has Pykey improved in that time?



I think this arguement you present is absurd. To suggest that getting to an 1800 rating requires talent is simply ridiculous. It is very convenient that you choose to ignore the reality of who improved more on the last ACF rating list. :hmm: Could it be the ACF is really ageist? After all, the same people claimed that they would probably support an adult who was improving. :hmm:

Just for the record,again. I think Macavity deserves a spot as an improving adult. Take a look at your own ACF December list if you do not believe me.It is much harder to go up after 2000, then from say 1500.




>Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093 (Presumed womens rep? Is this true?)

I don't believe that she is Australian Women's champion, so she would be subject to the equivalent proficiency criteria.



Another imaginary clause....surely the clause would be better served to rate these players on rating. As far as I can see Laura is third after 1.Jay and 2.Andrew




>Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073 (Improved even less then Wallis)

Has improved at least 250 points since the last Championship. That's more than any non-junior over 2000 I can think of.

250 points over two years, while impressive, is not much of an improvement compared to the other juniors. I don't think it is more then adult players like Dragicevic or Anderson.

cheers Fg7

pax
02-12-2005, 06:59 PM
Obst is the SA Champion.

Oops, my mistake!

pax
02-12-2005, 07:06 PM
Personally, I am of the opinion that the WA players are over-rated.

Now you're just shit stirring. Overrated based on what evidence?

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 07:10 PM
Now you're just shit stirring. Overrated based on what evidence?

Their proportion of players rated between 2000 and 2200 is disproportional compared to the same rating group for other states.

cheers Fg7

pax
02-12-2005, 07:12 PM
Another imaginary clause....surely the clause would be better served to rate these players on rating. As far as I can see Laura is third after 1.Jay and 2.Andrew

Sorry, what is imaginary exactly?



250 points over two years, while impressive, is not much of an improvement compared to the other juniors. I don't think it is more then adult players like Dragicevic or Anderson.


It is more than both Dragicevic and Anderson.

pax
02-12-2005, 07:15 PM
Their proportion of players rated between 2000 and 2200 is disproportional compared to the same rating group for other states.


Is the mean higher? Is there a larger variance? Or have you just decided that there are too many. How many WA players have you played recently?

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 07:17 PM
Sorry, what is imaginary exactly?

Well you tell me. Surely the ACF is best served by judging those players under the cut off on their ratings, otherwise somebody gets in at somebody elses expense. Isn't that the point of a rating? :doh:




It is more than both Dragicevic and Anderson.
What is?

cheers fg7

Gringo
02-12-2005, 08:19 PM
Firegoat will get Toasted if he dares a trip to W.A. :eek:

pax
02-12-2005, 09:18 PM
Well you tell me. Surely the ACF is best served by judging those players under the cut off on their ratings, otherwise somebody gets in at somebody elses expense. Isn't that the point of a rating?

The point of the provision is that there are sometimes factors not represented by the ACF rating.

e.g Player A performs consistently at 2200 in long time controls, but has a lower rating due to G60 tournaments. Player B played most of his games overseas, and has demonstrated proficiency at the required level despite not having the required ACF rating.




What is?


Don't play dumb. 250 points is more than either Dragicevic or Anderson's ratings have improved in the same time.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2005, 09:27 PM
OK, for the benefit of those who are jumping the gun and getting silly about nothing there are words at the top of that list of players. Those words, which are obviously smaller than the 48-point required for some people to pay attention to them, are: "(subject to selection procedure)". That list is simply a list of (i) those who have applied for the Australian Championships and qualified automatically (ii) those who have applied for the Australian Championships and whose applications have not yet been ruled on.

There is not much point speculating about whether Player X who is not on that list should be in the field because Player X not being on that list means that Player X has not, at this stage, applied.

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 03:27 PM
Is the mean higher? Is there a larger variance? Or have you just decided that there are too many.
Look at the comparative averages...

WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%

2135!! 13 Barber, Haydn J [FM]
2264!! 13 Boyd, Tristan
2135! 0 Byrne, Stewart J
2021!! 9 Haasse, Adam
2067!! 13 Hare, Tim
2100! 0 Horstmann, Michael
2145! 0 Lakner, Jay
2111 0 McCamon, Boyd
2030 0 Painter, Julian
2009 0 Tomek, Glenn

Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%

2094! 0 Aghamalyan, Armen
2173 0 Anderson, Tim
2184! 6 Booth, Stewart
2192! 0 Chow, Samuel
2014!! 30 Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
2129!! 25 Dragicevic, Domagoj
2008?? 0 Frean, Greg J
2166!! 16 Gorka, Carl
2079!! 36 Hacche, David J
2058!! 26 Hislop, James K
2040!! 10 Jensen, Kai
2100! 0 Le, Tuan N
2032!! 21 Lojanica, Milenko
2000 5 Mirkovic, Jovica
2103? 0 O'Carroll, Jeremy
2070! 0 Partsi, Dimitry
2027!! 16 Pecori, Ascaro
2096 0 Powell, David G
2079!! 42 Pyke, Malcolm L
2045!! 16 Skiotis, Pano
2055? 1 Small, David H
2019!! 21 Stead, Kerry
2050!! 17 Stirling, Nathan
2055!! 40 Wallis, Christopher
2142 11 Wong, Ngiam Yee
2134! 4 Woodhams, Michael V
2005! 0 Wright, Ian D

A quick look showed Canberra had 3 and Tasmania 0

Therefore Mr Paxman, you are refuted again. :hand:


How many WA players have you played recently?
I notice you continue to infer things that have nothing to do with the evidence. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 03:51 PM
Don't play dumb. 250 points is more than either Dragicevic or Anderson's ratings have improved in the same time.

Hey buddy, if anyone is the dumbo it is you.....

For instance here is Dragicevic's efforts in November 2003

http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2003/e0309fop/results.htm

Here is his current rating as of Decemder 2003
http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

:hand: 2-0- Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2005, 06:42 PM
Look at the comparative averages...

WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%
[..]
Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%

Proves nothing, because Victoria is much more active in getting juniors onto the rating list, so the above stat could result from Victoria having more weak juniors rather than less 2000+ adults.

By the way Tasmania now has one 2000-2200, Tony Dowden, unless he is listed as overseas. In the initial version of the December list he appears as unrated but Bill has now been advised of his FIDE rating and Dowden is now ACF 2184.

Re Raymond Song: ACF Council approved Song's application in June. At the time it was approved Song's rating had in fact improved by 423 points in the previous two years (including 70 point uplift).

Worth noting that the excellent free service provided by ACE at http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings#search is very useful for looking at ratings gains over time, although it does not as yet include the December ratings.

pax
03-12-2005, 07:11 PM
Hey buddy, if anyone is the dumbo it is you.....

For instance here is Dragicevic's efforts in November 2003

http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2003/e0309fop/results.htm

Here is his current rating as of Decemder 2003
http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm

:hand: 2-0- Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

Let's see:

Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

Didn't they teach you sums in school? :wall: :wall:


p.s If you insist on going back to the September 2003 list, then the improvement becomes Dragicevic 285, Song 389. I'm afraid you lose either way.

pax
03-12-2005, 07:23 PM
Look at the comparative averages...

WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%


Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%


Blatant misuse of statistics will get you nowhere, my good Goat.

Lets look at players over 2000, instead of your arbitrary 2000-2200 (a bracket in which WA has an admittedly high number).

Vic 39/748=5.2%
WA 10/168=5.9%

Of course, when you take out recently arrived foreign players Horstmann McCamon and Hare, you get 7/168=4.2%.

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 07:45 PM
Proves nothing, because Victoria is much more active in getting juniors onto the rating list, so the above stat could result from Victoria having more weak juniors rather than less 2000+ adults.

I don't think it proves nothing. But for me to believe your junior statistics you need to break it down statistically.



Re Raymond Song: ACF Council approved Song's application in June. At the time it was approved Song's rating had in fact improved by 423 points in the previous two years (including 70 point uplift).


Well blame Pax, he was the person who first wrote...


Has improved at least 250 points since the last Championship. That's more than any non-junior over 2000 I can think of.

He then asks me to do the maths :hmm: When the ignorant fool can't even provide us with the correct information in the first place. So all the arguements were based on his estimate from post 36. Clearly if this is not the case, then Pax is the person to blame not me. The only thing I can be blamed for is believing the clown.

Then he produced this post....


Let's see:

Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

Didn't they teach you sums in school? :wall: :wall:


Its a bit late to try and kick goals after the siren...you were the one who provided the false information in the first place. :clap: :clap: So I guess you look a little bit :oops:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 07:53 PM
Blatant misuse of statistics will get you nowhere, my good Goat.

Lets look at players over 2000, instead of your arbitrary 2000-2200 (a bracket in which WA has an admittedly high number).

Vic 39/748=5.2%
WA 10/168=5.9%

Of course, when you take out recently arrived foreign players Horstmann McCamon and Hare, you get 7/168=4.2%.

Paxman :wall: Paxman :wall: Paxman :wall:

As usual your sloppy analysis does justice to your stupidy. If you bother to re-read what was posted by myself on 42 and yourself on 44, you will quickly realise that not only did you understand the context of the discussion :hand: , but you also accepted it.

If you want to change the parameters now, after the horse has bolted then thats your own problem :hmm:

Face the facts you have been absolutely destroyed in this thread and you simply cannot admit it to yourself...loser :owned:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 07:58 PM
Let's see:

Dragicevic 12/05=2129, 12/03=1895. Difference=234.
Song 12/05=2073, 12/03=1790. Difference=293.

Didn't they teach you sums in school? :wall: :wall:




Just another point. Pax, fails to understand that the higher your rating is, the more the points are worth.

To suggest that somebody who goes up from 1000-1400 i.e. 400 points, compared to somebody who goes from 2300-2500 i.e. 200 points is a more improved player is simply false. The reality is its not about the quantity of the points anyway. Its about the quality of the points. Something that Mr Paxman does not understand. :hand:

cheers Fg7

pax
03-12-2005, 08:11 PM
Just another point. Pax, fails to understand that the higher your rating is, the more the points are worth.

To suggest that somebody who goes up from 1000-1400 i.e. 400 points, compared to somebody who goes from 2300-2500 i.e. 200 points is a more improved player is simply false. The reality is its not about the quantity of the points anyway. Its about the quality of the points. Something that Mr Paxman does not understand. :hand:


*translation*

Whoops! I got caught out, so I'd better change the rules of the argument quick!

pax
03-12-2005, 08:13 PM
As usual your sloppy analysis does justice to your stupidy. If you bother to re-read what was posted by myself on 42 and yourself on 44, you will quickly realise that not only did you understand the context of the discussion but you also accepted it.

Sorry mate, but that's just bullshit.

Did I understand your argument? Yes.

Did I agree that to arbitrarily choose one particular narrow rating range as proof of whether one system was underrated with respect to another? Sorry, but no.

pax
03-12-2005, 08:16 PM
And what is the meaning of "stupidy" anyway?

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 08:23 PM
Sorry mate, but that's just bullshit.

Did I understand your argument? Yes.

Did I agree that to arbitrarily choose one particular narrow rating range as proof of whether one system was underrated with respect to another? Sorry, but no.

Did you understand the argument about 2000-2200 ratings. Clearly not since you now want to change the category to 2400, simply because you lost the arguement and cannot admit your error.

You obviously agreed, otherwise you wouldn't have taken exception to the 2000-2200 criteria I used. Seriously, everyone can read it in posts 42 and 44 for themselves....so there is no point in carrying on like you do. :clap: :clap:

You just make yourself look more and more stupid by refusing to admit you were wrong. Its not that hard....just admit it...go on ...don't be a girls blouse.

cheers Fg7
P.S. Im not your mate, Mr never wrong :banana: :banana: :evilb: :banana:

Vlad
03-12-2005, 08:24 PM
And what is the meaning of "stupidy" anyway?

Well, this one has a trivial answer. Stupidity==fg7! :)

P.S. When I was a kid I was often told by my mother: "If you say nothing then nobody will say that you are stupid". This is I believe something fg7 has never been told.

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 08:37 PM
Well, this one has a trivial answer. Stupidity==fg7! :)

P.S. When I was a kid I was often told by my mother: "If you say nothing then nobody will say that you are stupid". This is I believe something fg7 has never been told.

Drug,

There is a difference between making a typo, while typing at speed and completely denying an arguement simply because you were refuted. Even if the argument is there for all to see....now that is really stupid.....my corkhead friend.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2005, 08:46 PM
I don't think it proves nothing. But for me to believe your junior statistics you need to break it down statistically.

I don't care what is necessary for you to believe anything. The point is that for the same data (more 2000-2200 players as %age of players in WA) you have advanced an explanation. I have advanced an alternative. Unless you can either prove your explanation or disprove mine then all we have is competing hypotheses and your point has not been proven.


To suggest that somebody who goes up from 1000-1400 i.e. 400 points, compared to somebody who goes from 2300-2500 i.e. 200 points is a more improved player is simply false. The reality is its not about the quantity of the points anyway. Its about the quality of the points. Something that Mr Paxman does not understand.

Even if true, that is irrelevant to this discussion, because the wasp in your bonnet concerns the prospects of adults under 2150 being admitted to the Aus Champs, compared with juniors. If the ratings of the adults and juniors being compared are the same, then the "quality of the points" is the same, all other things being equal.

firegoat7
03-12-2005, 09:12 PM
I don't care what is necessary for you to believe anything. The point is that for the same data (more 2000-2200 players as %age of players in WA) you have advanced an explanation. I have advanced an alternative. Unless you can either prove your explanation or disprove mine then all we have is competing hypotheses and your point has not been proven.

I have no problem with you advancing an alternative. It may even be correct, just don't expect me to confirm your statistics. Do it yourself, you advance the theory, you provide the evidence.






Even if true, that is irrelevant to this discussion, because the wasp in your bonnet concerns the prospects of adults under 2150 being admitted to the Aus Champs, compared with juniors. If the ratings of the adults and juniors being compared are the same, then the "quality of the points" is the same, all other things being equal.

I have no problem with this arguement either. It is true it is irrelevent to the initial discussion. That is why I qualified my point as being a new one. This is what is supposed to happen out of dialectic, isn't it? :hmm: Anyway, how can you have a dialectical discussion with somebody who cannot accept the most basic of contexts.Who refuses to move on with the conversation simply because they were wrong. Pax should admit his failings :hand:

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2005, 09:25 PM
I have no problem with you advancing an alternative. It may even be correct, just don't expect me to confirm your statistics. Do it yourself, you advance the theory, you provide the evidence.

I wasn't aiming to prove it though. I was just aiming to show that your theory is unproven and may well be wrong.

firegoat7
04-12-2005, 02:20 PM
I wasn't aiming to prove it though. I was just aiming to show that your theory is unproven and may well be wrong.

While it is true my theory may be incorrect, it is also true it may be correct. :hand: Furthermore, a theory with some quantitative data behind it is better evidence then a theory with no data.

cheers Fg7

Bereaved
04-12-2005, 03:19 PM
Hello everyone,

here is the current field ( subject to approval) as listed at the official website

2006 Australian Championships

Player Title State FIDE ACF
Ftacnik, Lubomir GM SVK 2612 2690
Rogers, Ian GM NSW 2556 2631
Schmaltz, Roland GM GER 2544 2530
Chandler, Murray GM ENG 2537 249
Johansen, Darryl GM VIC 2462 2453
Zhao, Zong-Yuan IM NSW 2461 2475
Lane, Gary IM NSW 2445 2484
Wohl, Alex IM QLD 2439 2538
Smerdon, David IM QLD 2421 2405
Solomon, Stephen IM QLD 2415 2391
Bjelobrk, Igor FM NSW 2399 2408
Sandler, Leonid IM VIC 2381 2306
Canfell, Greg FM NSW 2354 2296
Xie, George FM NSW 2340 2324
Goldenberg, Igor FM VIC 2335 2315
Humphrey, Jonathan FM QLD 2254 2189
Guthrie, Aaron FM SA 2251 2120
Levi, Eddy FM VIC 2241 2235
Dougherty, Michael FM CAN 2212 2228
Caoili, Arianne WIM QLD 2207 2293
Lakner, Jay WA 2207 2145
Jones, Lee FM NSW 2189 2054
Norris, Damian QLD 2180 2084
Booth, Stewart VIC 2179 2184
Ly, Moulthun QLD 2162 2148
Bird, Andrew NSW 2146 2105
Wallis, Christopher VIC 2114 2055
Moylan, Laura WIM NSW 2112 2093
Song, Raymond NSW 2051 2073
Obst, James SA 2012 2054
Frame, Nigel TAS 1849
*249 BCF = 2592 ELO



Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bereaved
04-12-2005, 03:24 PM
Hello, Everyone,
and the field for the Major


Australian Major
Sheldrick, Kevin SA 2118
Tredinnick, Malcolm NSW 2172 2073
Milligan, Helen WFM SCO 2045 159 BCF*
Marner, Gavin NZL 1975 2044 NZCF
Hu, Jason NSW 2081 2024
Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija VIC 2122 2014
Zvedeniouk, Ilia NSW 2123 2001
Wongwichit, Phachara QLD 2032 1945
Wright, Neil NSW 2141 1945
Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 2044 1930
Fry, Peter VIC 1908
Truscott, Tony QLD 2082 1879
Davidovici, Victor QLD 1861
Lilly, Richard WA 1994 1851
Vijayakumar, Rukman VIC 2019 1851
Rout, Ian ACT 2048 1846
Cashman, Michael QLD 1842
Myers, John QLD 2069 1833
Tulevski, Vasil NSW 2021 1828
Davis, Tony VIC 1988 1816
Lukursky, Boris QLD 1784
Lazarus, Ben QLD 2155 1771
Selnes, Hamish QLD 1953 1752
McKenzie, Colin VIC 1716
Holland, Dennis WA 1715
Hackenschmidt-Uecker, Jorg QLD 1708
Guo-Yuthok, Sherab ACT 1878 1706
Cox, Barry NSW 1701
Oliver, Shannon WFM ACT 1956 1685
Korenevski, Oleg QLD 1674
Canfell, Mike NSW 1648
Brockman, Roland VIC 1784 1628
Schon, Eugene VIC 1611
Humphries, Ryan WA 1555
Barker, Ken QLD 1526
Chuang, Howard QLD 1514
Tang, Jason VIC 1466
Horton, Russell TAS 1357
Russell, Luthien QLD 1334
Hunter, Shayne QLD 1235
Guo, Emma ACT 1197
Kenmure, Jamie VIC 1150
Bhattacharya, Devraj VIC 1113
Bielenberg, Nathanael QLD 1112
Long Hong, Stan QLD 1094
Sheng, Susan VIC 1085
Soo, Brayden QLD unr
*159 BCF = 2045 ELO


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Alan Shore
04-12-2005, 03:59 PM
That's some poor coding there. Better just go to the website to view those entrants.

Bereaved
04-12-2005, 06:29 PM
Hi Belthasar,

Actually up until today the official site had an atrocious display of the field, much worse than what you see above.

As it is, the problem with copying and pasting this information is exascerbated by the fact that the two columns of different tournaments are considered to be on one line within the site and as such, it was necessary to first paste the information into a text program ( Word in this case ) prior to posting it here.

That explains what I know of the poor formatting and its causes. For any other concerns, my apologies to you, and any others that were concerned,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Alan Shore
04-12-2005, 06:33 PM
Hi Belthasar,

Actually up until today the official site had an atrocious display of the field, much worse than what you see above.

As it is, the problem with copying and pasting this information is exascerbated by the fact that the two columns of different tournaments are considered to be on one line within the site and as such, it was necessary to first paste the information into a text program ( Word in this case ) prior to posting it here.

That explains what I know of the poor formatting and its causes. For any other concerns, my apologies to you, and any others that were concerned,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Were you using Firefox to view the site? It screws up on first viewing, you have to refresh the page for the formatting to display properly.

Bereaved
04-12-2005, 06:40 PM
Hi Belthasar,

Yes was using Firefox, but not refreshing but selecting all seemed to straighten it out for me, must enact a similar effect on the page.

Not withstanding the information was still on the one line for the two tournaments, and required a bit of fiddling,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS maybe you can try with the other fields and see if it will work better for you; junior, rapid, lightning etc...

Bereaved
04-12-2005, 10:04 PM
Hello everyone,

The first article is from the section in the ACF constitution titled: By-Laws for ACF tournaments


26. Where a championship is held in which entry is restricted to a specified
number of players and/or players above a notional playing strength, the
following procedure shall be followed to determine which players shall be
admitted to the championship and which players shall be admitted to any reserves
tournament to be conducted in conjunction with the championship:

a. persons completing entry forms shall be required to indicate whether or not
they are willing to compete in the championship and whether or not they are
willing to compete in the reserves tournament (if any);

b. the Federation shall appoint a panel of selectors for the purposes of the
championship;

c. as soon as possible after the close of entries, the names of all entrants
(championship and reserves) shall be conveyed to the selection panel;

d. the selection panel shall rank all entrants as though they were entrants in
the same tournament and regardless of whether or not an entrant is willing to
play in the championship and/or reserves;

e. the selection panel shall determine a different ranking for each entrant,
firstly on the basis of playing strength, and secondly (in the case of entrants
of equal playing strength), by lot;

f. the field for the championship shall comprise:

i. those players to whom the right to compete is granted by a Federation By-Law
dealing specifically with that championship;

ii. such players as the Federation may invite to participate in the
championship;

iii. the winner of the reserves tournament (if any) held in conjunction with the
previous championship; and

iv. other entrants in the ranking order determined by the selection panel until
the agreed maximum number of competitors has been reached or until there are no
further entrants of at least the agreed minimum playing strength, whichever
occurs first;

i.

g. the field for the reserves tournament shall comprise all entrants who have
indicated a willingness to compete in the reserves tournament whose ranking (as
determined by the selectors) is not sufficient to admit them to the
championship;

h. a player whose ranking would enable him to compete in the championship shall
be ineligible to compete in the reserves tournament;

i. Where an entry for a national championship or reserves tournament is not
submitted in time to be considered by the selectors for that championship, the
State Association responsible may reject the entry or refer it to the President
of the Federation. If so referred, the President shall consider whether there is
a reasonable chance that the player concerned would have been selected for the
championship if his or her entry had been considered by the selectors. If the
President decides that such a reasonable chance exists or if the President is
unable to decide whether or not such a reasonable chance exists, the player
concerned shall be ineligible to compete in either the championship or the
reserves tournament. If the President decides that there is not a reasonable
chance that the player concerned would have been selected for the championship,
he or she may be admitted to the reserves tournament.

And the second is the By-Law No.1 which deals with the specifics of the Australian Championship and Major


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.



Take care all, and God Bless, Macavity

Article 26 (i) (bolded) seems confusing at the least, particularly the part in italics?
What do you all think?

PS posted this here for easy reference on what we are discussing in this matter, M

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2005, 10:25 PM
While it is true my theory may be incorrect, it is also true it may be correct. :hand: Furthermore, a theory with some quantitative data behind it is better evidence then a theory with no data.

Actually our two theories are different interpretations of the same data.

macavity - on my reading, bylaw 26 is not applicable at all as the Australian Championships is not currently an event in which "entry is restricted to a specified
number of players and/or players above a notional playing strength".

26i is clear enough to me though - for those events it applies to, it allows for too-late entries to be added to reserves divisions if they clearly belong there, and otherwise to be rejected.

pax
05-12-2005, 11:47 AM
Article 26 (i) (bolded) seems confusing at the least, particularly the part in italics?
What do you all think?


I agree that that particular section is not as clear as it could be.

Essentially, I interpret it like this:
-Suppose you have missed the application deadline for the Championship/Reserves. The selection process for the Championship has already taken place, so you cannot play in that. You *may* be able to play in the Reserves, but only if it is unambiguously clear that you would be entitled to play in the reserves (I assume there is only any doubt in the case of people without an ACF rating).

rob
05-12-2005, 03:01 PM
Look at the comparative averages...

WA has 10/168 registered/rated players between 2000-2200= 5.95%

2135!! 13 Barber, Haydn J [FM]
2264!! 13 Boyd, Tristan
2135! 0 Byrne, Stewart J
2021!! 9 Haasse, Adam
2067!! 13 Hare, Tim
2100! 0 Horstmann, Michael
2145! 0 Lakner, Jay
2111 0 McCamon, Boyd
2030 0 Painter, Julian
2009 0 Tomek, Glenn

Victoria has 27/748 registered/rated players between 2000-2200 =3.61%

2094! 0 Aghamalyan, Armen
2173 0 Anderson, Tim
2184! 6 Booth, Stewart
2192! 0 Chow, Samuel
2014!! 30 Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija
2129!! 25 Dragicevic, Domagoj
2008?? 0 Frean, Greg J
2166!! 16 Gorka, Carl
2079!! 36 Hacche, David J
2058!! 26 Hislop, James K
2040!! 10 Jensen, Kai
2100! 0 Le, Tuan N
2032!! 21 Lojanica, Milenko
2000 5 Mirkovic, Jovica
2103? 0 O'Carroll, Jeremy
2070! 0 Partsi, Dimitry
2027!! 16 Pecori, Ascaro
2096 0 Powell, David G
2079!! 42 Pyke, Malcolm L
2045!! 16 Skiotis, Pano
2055? 1 Small, David H
2019!! 21 Stead, Kerry
2050!! 17 Stirling, Nathan
2055!! 40 Wallis, Christopher
2142 11 Wong, Ngiam Yee
2134! 4 Woodhams, Michael V
2005! 0 Wright, Ian D

A quick look showed Canberra had 3 and Tasmania 0

Therefore Mr Paxman, you are refuted again. :hand:


I notice you continue to infer things that have nothing to do with the evidence. :whistle:

cheers Fg7

I think that the evidence suggests that Tristan Boyd (WA) 2264 should not have been included in your WA 2000-2200 list - but maybe you are correct and I am wrong.

I believe that WA has a low proportion of rated juniors compared to other areas of Aus, thus affecting the total number of rated players and the % of those 2000-2200.

It is very likely that the numbers in this rating group will reduce from 9 to about 6 (3.5%) due to inactivity in the next year or so.

bobby1972
05-12-2005, 03:11 PM
To all those who did not get in you had 2 years since you last did not get in,so that means you got 2 years to the next one,why not try to improve but i bet any money that in 2 years firegoat will start this again ,2 years man thats a very long time.hey there is always the Oz Open that is a great turney as well.the champs its just another turney unless you are playing for the title which no 2150+ can get anyway,if you did not get in, embrace your chess mediocrity and try to get to 2150 if you cant(no time,no talent,no ambition,no chess psycosis,no whatever) then bad luck but dont cry there is no shame in being sub 2150 .he he he.

four four two
05-12-2005, 03:39 PM
Song and Wallis are not 2150,not state champions,and not the current or past Australian junior champion. Do you think they should embrace their "mediocrity"? :hmm:
Shouldnt these 2 juniors be waiting 2 years like other adults? :hmm:
Or should it be easier for juniors to qualify? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2005, 05:22 PM
The difference between the WA and Vic proportions of players in the 2000-2200 range is not statistically significant anyway (with Boyd removed, chi-square = 1.076; result required for significance is 3.84).

firegoat7
05-12-2005, 05:54 PM
I think that the evidence suggests that Tristan Boyd (WA) 2264 should not have been included in your WA 2000-2200 list - but maybe you are correct and I am wrong.

Yes Rob, You are right, an oversight on my behalf. Thanks for pointing it out.

9/168 =5.35%

Cheers Fg7

bobby1972
06-12-2005, 08:21 AM
juniors are not completly hard wired jet so they are still improving all these dreamers and i mean dreamers who think that a 30+ player can improve a few hundred points are dreaming baby.they just refuse to see the truth, its beautiful how they keep trying so pathetic what are they tying to prove.at 41.5 all i am trying to do is beat the odd good player .

Spiny Norman
06-12-2005, 08:30 AM
juniors are not completly hard wired jet so they are still improving all these dreamers and i mean dreamers who think that a 30+ player can improve a few hundred points are dreaming baby.they just refuse to see the truth, its beautiful how they keep trying so pathetic what are they tying to prove.at 41.5 all i am trying to do is beat the odd good player .
Hey bobby, I'm 42 and achieved +320 points in the past 15 months ... wanna bet on whether I will reach my goal of another +170 points in the next 12-18 months? :hand: Wouldn't bet against me if I were you ... I'm pretty determined.

Rincewind
06-12-2005, 08:48 AM
Hey bobby, I'm 42 and achieved +320 points in the past 15 months ... wanna bet on whether I will reach my goal of another +170 points in the next 12-18 months? :hand: Wouldn't bet against me if I were you ... I'm pretty determined.

Hey relax Frosty. I think Ascaro was stirring, but not you. He does make an interesting point but not very well. Also not all rating points were made equal. It is easier to go from 500 to 1000 than it is to go from 1000 to 1500 and so on and so forth.

If you are determined I would not bet against you making those 170 points. However the next 400 after that will test you (or at least they have me). ;)

Watto
06-12-2005, 08:52 AM
My money’s also on Frosty to win that bet.

Although I think they’re talking about different things as Rincewind pointed out. I presume Bobby1972 is talking about an adult who’s been playing chess for years and who’s rating has steadied. Nevertheless, if their time frees up, and they have the talent and necessary passion, get a great coach etc, who knows what an adult in precisely that situation could achieve. Statistics tell us little about an individual’s potential which is why generalisations based on anecdotal stats are often best ignored...

Watto
06-12-2005, 08:53 AM
My money’s also on Frosty to win that bet.

Although I think they’re talking about different things as Rincewind pointed out. I presume Bobby1972 is talking about an adult who’s been playing chess for years and who’s rating has steadied. Nevertheless, if their time frees up, and they have the talent and necessary passion, get a great coach etc, who knows what an adult in precisely that situation could achieve. Statistics tell us little about an individual’s potential which is why generalisations based on anecdotal stats are often best ignored...

best ignored by the individual I mean.

Spiny Norman
06-12-2005, 09:51 AM
Hey relax Frosty. I think Ascaro was stirring, but not you. He does make an interesting point but not very well. Also not all rating points were made equal. It is easier to go from 500 to 1000 than it is to go from 1000 to 1500 and so on and so forth.

If you are determined I would not bet against you making those 170 points. However the next 400 after that will test you (or at least they have me). ;)

I figured that he was aiming at the roughly-2000 rated players, not me ... but since I have found it "relatively easy" to get from the 1100's to the 1400's this year, I figured I'd have a dig anyway. :)

I do agree that the gap between say 1700 and 2000 is wider than the gap between 1100 and 1400. But I am not sure whether that's only because there are fewer players capable of 2000, or whether there is another reason. I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that mathematically (in terms of the ratings system) there is no difference between the two gaps.

Anyway, 1600 is my next goal, then we'll see after that... :uhoh:

bobby1972
06-12-2005, 10:45 AM
some points are harder than others 1950 to 2000 are hard points ,2000 to say high 2000 are not so hard i dont know why but it is

Alan Shore
06-12-2005, 12:20 PM
Hey bobby, I'm 42 and achieved +320 points in the past 15 months ... wanna bet on whether I will reach my goal of another +170 points in the next 12-18 months? :hand: Wouldn't bet against me if I were you ... I'm pretty determined.

All very well getting the +170, but don't do a Barry (or myself for that matter at one point) and then lose them all back! >_<

firegoat7
06-12-2005, 02:11 PM
juniors are not completly hard wired jet so they are still improving all these dreamers and i mean dreamers who think that a 30+ player can improve a few hundred points are dreaming baby.they just refuse to see the truth, its beautiful how they keep trying so pathetic what are they tying to prove.at 41.5 all i am trying to do is beat the odd good player .

I'm on the inside, when it comes to this argument. Here is what Ascaro really means.

AP: I can beat them all, but I work full time and have a wife and kid.
MP: I will be playing in the next Australain championship
AP: You're weak, I was crushing you like the insect you are in our last game.
MP: If I am an insect, I am a praying ;) mantis, It was 0-1 in my favor
AP: You are insignificant in the whole scheme of things, you are a nobody.
MP: Technically, I am a stronger nobody then you
AP: I would rather die then play chess like you
MP: You had your chance in the Masters
DB: Yeah stop your belly aching punk
AP: You are all just mediocre and caissa is sucking your marrow
MP: Ascaro, my rating is higher then yours
AP: At least I have a life
DB: Get back to work you wage slave
AP: I told you, you would join the real world and ditch the chess psychosis
MP: God bless
AP: I pray God will destroy the weak like you
RB: God is the biggest bitch of them all
AP: Don't talk like that man, it scares me

:whistle:

cheers Fg7

Vlad
06-12-2005, 03:06 PM
Pax,you should know my position by now.

But if you have forgotten,let me state it again for you.

I disagree with the current cut off and think it should be lowered so as give ALL players who are within 100 points of the current cut off an oppurtunity to play against a strong field in a closed tournament.
Britain,a country with over 30 GM's, still allows mid 2100 players to play in their championship.They see it as good for the overall development of chess.
I cant see why a country as strong as Britain should follow this line of thinking and we shouldnt.We seem hell bent on making it as difficult as possible for players around the 2100 mark ,but under 2150 , to play against our top players.

Having said that,if we are going to stick with the CURRENT criteria,then that criteria should be applied equally whether they are a junior or not.
Under the current criteria it is easier for juniors to qualify for our national championship.In my opinion that is shortsighted,and treats certain adult players who are no weaker than these juniors as "second class" players.

I think it is transparent now why 442 makes all these comments. He was above 2150 a year ago but now only stands at 2070. It is clearly not good enough for the championship. This is why he is so upset. Poor, little 442.

bobby1972
06-12-2005, 03:54 PM
that was funny

Rhubarb
06-12-2005, 04:24 PM
jesus, vlad... you are so on the wrong track...

Vlad
06-12-2005, 05:06 PM
jesus, vlad... you are so on the wrong track...

Sorry mate to let you down. Just hate people who are hiding behind their nick names and viciously attacking others. This guy is a master in that field.

mysuccess05, 442; any other nicks u are using Partsi?

P.S. See you in the championship, it seems I can actually make it.

Garvinator
27-12-2005, 09:44 PM
First round PROVISIONAL pairings with correct colours here:


1 2612 2690 GM Ftacnik, Lubomir (0) FM Guthrie, Aaron (0) 2251 2120
2 2241 2235 FM Levi, Eddy (0) GM Rogers, Ian (0) 2556 2631
3 2544 2530 GM Schmaltz, Roland (0) Smirnov, Vladimir (0) 2235 2237
4 2223 0 FM Dougherty, Michael (0) GM Chandler, Murray (0) 2537 0
5 2462 2453 GM Johansen, Darryl (0) WIM Caoili, Arianne (0) 2207 2293
6 2207 2145 Lakner, Jay (0) IM Zhao, Zong-Yuan (0) 2461 2475
7 2445 2484 IM Lane, Gary (0) Booth, Stewart (0) 2179 2184
8 2162 2148 Ly, Moulthun (0) IM Wohl, Alex (0) 2439 2538
9 2421 2405 IM Smerdon, David (0) Bird, Andrew (0) 2146 2105
10 2126 2079 Pyke, Malcolm (0) IM Solomon, Stephen (0) 2415 2391
11 2399 2408 FM Bjelobrk, Igor (0) Wallis, Christopher (0) 2114 2055
12 2112 2093 WIM Moylan, Laura (0) FM Canfell, Greg (0) 2354 2296
13 2340 2324 FM Xie, George (0) Song, Raymond (0) 2051 2073
14 2012 2054 Obst, James (0) FM Goldenberg, Igor (0) 2335 2315
15 2254 2189 FM Humphrey, Jonathan (0) Frame, Nigel (0) 0 1850

please be aware that these are provisional and are from the website.