PDA

View Full Version : QUGS Tournaments



Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Okay everyone (Garvin Gray and Howard Duggan and Belthasar in particular).

This is the situation.

Over the past weeks on Wednesday night there have been rapid chess tournaments played at UQ (aka the QUGS tournaments).

Garvin was the 'TD/arbiter/Director of Play' for these tournaments.

Garvin submitted these tournaments to the CAQ be rated, however no one knew that these tournaments would be rated and this was to some extent substaniated in that no rating fee had to be paid by any of the participants for the games to be rated.

Now Brendan Griffith, who earned a rapid rating of 1310, wants his rating to stand even if the QUGS tournaments are 'unrated' as the CAQ has suggested they may be.

I, along with Garvin and Brendan would also like the new ratings to stand.

Howard, as CAQ President, what is your position on this mess?

Rincewind
21-06-2006, 03:03 PM
Garvin submitted these tournaments to the CAQ be rated, however no one knew that these tournaments would be rated and this was to some extent substaniated in that no rating fee had to be paid by any of the participants for the games to be rated.

Wasn't the rating fee abolished for rapid events? If so, perhaps the DOP felt the only barrier to rating the event was financial and since this was removed then the event could be rated without prejudice. I get the impression, however, that some players felt that other agendas were being advanced. All very intreguing.

Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 03:06 PM
Wasn't the rating fee abolished for rapid events? If so, perhaps the DOP felt the only barrier to rating the event was financial and since this was removed then the event could be rated without prejudice. I get the impression, however, that some players felt that other agendas were being advanced. All very intreguing.

I think Belthasar is the only player hesitant to have the tournaments rated, I was originally quite indifferent to it either way, but having gained 400 points am now leaning towards just having the blessed thing rated.

Also, the abolishon of rating fees for rapid tourney's has been a widely kept secret and most players are still unaware of it!

Rincewind
21-06-2006, 03:16 PM
I think Belthasar is the only player hesitant to have the tournaments rated, I was originally quite indifferent to it either way, but having gained 400 points am now leaning towards just having the blessed thing rated.

Out of interest, what was the rating change that Belty suffered?


Also, the abolishon of rating fees for rapid tourney's has been a widely kept secret and most players are still unaware of it!

This, whether true or not, is largely immaterial unless you are saying this is all a part of the conspiracy.

It seems that most people, or even all bar one, are in favour of, or ambivalent to, having the thing rated. The event was not publicised as an unrated event. Let the organisors rate it.

I have to admit that I am in general in favour of rating tournaments rather than not having them rated as a general rule of thumb. I think the rating system works better the more events which are rated.

There are cases where I think unrated events might prove useful (for example, training camp tourny's where participants are urged to play outside their normal comfort zones) however in this case all players should have been trying their darnedest so I can't see that there is that much of an issue.

Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 03:21 PM
Out of interest, what was the rating change that Belty suffered?
His rating got raped, big time!

Rincewind
21-06-2006, 03:25 PM
His rating got raped.

Or suffered "an adjustment", as they say in the financial pages.

I can assume therefore we are talking about a significant adjustment and this would colour his protest on ideological grounds.

The following question might be best answered by the man himself, but if Belty had known the event was going to be submitted for rating prior to participating, what would he have done differently and why?

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2006, 03:29 PM
I think Belthasar is the only player hesitant to have the tournaments rated, I was originally quite indifferent to it either way, but having gained 400 points am now leaning towards just having the blessed thing rated.

Also, the abolishon of rating fees for rapid tourney's has been a widely kept secret and most players are still unaware of it!It has been mentioned on a number of occasions in the ACF bulletin since mid January 2006.

Perhaps you need to be more observant.

Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 03:29 PM
Or suffered "an adjustment", as they say in the financial pages.
Agreed! :P


I can assume therefore we are talking about a significant adjustment and this would colour his protest on ideological grounds.
Agreed! :P


The following question might be best answered by the man himself, but if Belty had known the event was going to be submitted for rating prior to participating, what would he have done differently and why?
Agreed! :P

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2006, 04:05 PM
Tournaments should always be submitted for rating if possible unless it is explicitly stated in the entry material that they will not be rated.

Basil
21-06-2006, 04:39 PM
Howard, as CAQ President, what is your position on this mess?

My opinion on this issue is that it is being handled through the correct channels. Once that process has exhausted itself I would be happy to comment.

My position also mandates that prospective councillors should have a rudimentary knowledge and respect of such process! :)

Denis_Jessop
21-06-2006, 05:29 PM
<snip>

Also, the abolishon of rating fees for rapid tourney's has been a widely kept secret and most players are still unaware of it!

Then they should read the ACF Newsletter to wit:

From ACF Newsletter #351 of 11. 1.06

The ACF National Conference was held in Brisbane on 6 January 2006. The following motions were passed by the National Conference as recommendations to the ACF Council:

1. "To encourage the use of national rapid rating system by all state associations and other state bodies, CAQ moves that administration fees for events rated under the system be abolished." This motion was passed by 9 votes to 7, with 4 abstentions.

The ACF Council meeting was held later on the same day. Council made the following major decisions:

1. accepted the National Conference motion in relation to rapid ratings, but resolved that this would remain in effect till the ACF Council meeting following the next National Conference.

From ACF Newsletter #361 of 23.3.06

ACF Rapid Rating System:

In the ACF Newsletter no 351 of 11 January 2006 it was noted that the ACF National Conference had adopted the following resolution as a recommendation to the ACF Council:

"To encourage the use of national rapid rating system by all state associations and other state bodies, CAQ moves that administration fees for events rated under the system be abolished."

It was further noted that the ACF Council had accepted the National Conference motion, with the rider that the fee abolition would remain in effect until the ACF Council meeting following the next National Conference. The matter will then be reconsidered in light of this yearıs experience.

I am writing this note in accordance with the motion so as to encourage wider use of the Rapid Rating System. One use of the rapid list that was foreseen by the proposers of the motion was encouragement of organisers to rate more junior events most of which are played at rapid rates (game in 15 to 59 minutes). They felt that the list could in time become a de facto national junior rating list while not necessarily supplanting the junior rating schemes now operating in some States.

Another consideration is that the more names we have on our rating lists the more evidence we have of a large following for chess in Australia.

The ACF Rapid Rating List will continue to be administered by the National ratings officers and State ratings officers through whom events for rating should be channelled using Swiss Perfect files.

In brief, I encourage organisers of all rapid events, especially junior events, to submit their events for rating.

- Denis Jessop
ACF President

DJ

Rincewind
21-06-2006, 06:06 PM
Note on the adjustment: The last active rapid rating I can find for Belty is September 2005 where he is listed as "1858 ?". He seems to drop off by the time the December list is produced, I assume due to inactivity and then in June 2006 he reappears with 10 games and a rating of "1685 ". An adjustment of 173 points in the unhappy direction. By coincidence, this is also closer to his published standard rating of 1648.

Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 06:23 PM
My position also mandates that prospective councillors should have a rudimentary knowledge and respect of such process! :)

Prospective Councillor?

I have no such aspirations at this point Howard, but I will attend the next AGM and if my replacement candidates for Ian Murray don't come through then I may be considered a 'prospective councillor' - otherwise, no thanks. :hand:

Arrogant-One
21-06-2006, 06:26 PM
Then they should read the ACF Newsletter to wit:

From ACF Newsletter #351 of 11. 1.06

The ACF National Conference was held in Brisbane on 6 January 2006. The following motions were passed by the National Conference as recommendations to the ACF Council:

1. "To encourage the use of national rapid rating system by all state associations and other state bodies, CAQ moves that administration fees for events rated under the system be abolished." This motion was passed by 9 votes to 7, with 4 abstentions.


I heard that the change happened as a result of the lobbying efforts of Graeme Gardiner, as he felt his business could be more successful without an ACF rating fee.

Dennis, is that true, somewhat/partially true, or not true?

Denis_Jessop
21-06-2006, 09:51 PM
I heard that the change happened as a result of the lobbying efforts of Graeme Gardiner, as he felt his business could be more successful without an ACF rating fee.

Dennis, is that true, somewhat/partially true, or not true?

The matter was put to the National Conference by the Queensland delegates and Graeme was given leave to address the Conference. I believe that the idea was initiated by him but there was no indication that it was for the reason you suggest.

DJ

Arrogant-One
22-06-2006, 02:14 PM
The matter was put to the National Conference by the Queensland delegates and Graeme was given leave to address the Conference. I believe that the idea was initiated by him but there was no indication that it was for the reason you suggest. DJ

However, the possibilitiy cannot be dismissed, can it?

Basil
22-06-2006, 02:22 PM
However, the possibilitiy cannot be dismissed, can it?
Alex

I continue to take exception to your style. You throw up:
- I have heard ...
- Please substantiate ...
- is there any truth ...
all manner of unsupported allegations, when in fact they are baseless.

Those mentioned in your passing muckraking must either defend themselves or let it through to the keeper. If the latter, them some &^%$ must stick.

You've done it to a number of people on this board and that is why I maintain no respect for you, and continue to suggest your status approximates that of a mollusc [with continued deference to Kevin's little friends].

My position here should not be confused with genuine queries relating to prior substantiated premises.

Arrogant-One
22-06-2006, 02:31 PM
Alex

I continue to take exception to your style. You throw up:
- I have heard ...
- Please substantiate ...
- is there any truth ...
all manner of unsupported allegations, when in fact they are baseless.

Those mentioned in your passing muckraking must either defend themselves or let it through to the keeper. If the latter, them some &^%$ must stick.

You've done it to a number of people on this board and that is why I maintain no respect for you, and continue to suggest your status approximates that of a mollusc [with continued deference to Kevin's little friends].

My position here should not be confused with genuine queries relating to prior substantiated premises.
Howard,

You mustn't take exception to my style, that simply wouldn't be sporting.

The fact is an inference may rightly be drawn from a reasonable fair minded person on the following basis:

a.) Dennis Jessop has confirmed that Graeme Gardiner addressed the National Conference and advocated the abolishment of the rating fee for rapid tournaments; and

b.) Gardiner Chess, Graeme's commercial enterprise/business, holds a considerable number of rapid tournaments every year particularly for juniors.

As such the abolishment of the rapid rating fee would, presumably, enhance the trading ability of his commercial enterprise by encouraging further participation in his business's rapid tournaments.

Where exactly have I failed in my reasoning on this?

Desmond
22-06-2006, 02:48 PM
Your forgot to mention:

c) GG is formerly from England, so obviously any actions he takes can be interpreted by the conspiratoriously minded as a direct act to bring Australia down from the inside.

Denis_Jessop
22-06-2006, 03:30 PM
Howard,

You mustn't take exception to my style, that simply wouldn't be sporting.

The fact is an inference may rightly be drawn from a reasonable fair minded person on the following basis:

a.) Dennis Jessop has confirmed that Graeme Gardiner addressed the National Conference and avocated abolishment the a rating fee for rapid tournaments; and

b.) Gardiner Chess, Graeme's commercial enterprise/business, holds a considerable number of rapid tournaments every year particularly for juniors.

As such the abolishment of the rapid rating fee would, presumably, enhance the trading ability of his commercial enterprise by encouraging further participation in his business's rapid tournaments.

Where exactly have I failed in my reasoning on this?

Please be more careful with the truth. Your point (a) is not what I said.

DJ

Basil
22-06-2006, 04:08 PM
Where exactly have I failed in my reasoning on this?

What you have exactly failed to do is acknowledge that :
1) I raised the issue and spoke on behalf of CAQ, not Graeme
2) Graeme [only because he happened to be in the next room] was invited to speak in further support
3) Graeme may have other motives for raising this issue such as he may feel his work with juniors is compounding the problem, and so he is looking to assist seniors by supplying a more accurate and more reliable record of juniors ratings.

Had you gone through the correct channels first, say,
1. Writing to Graeme
2. Putting your original position in a more balanced way

We would not have yet another obfuscated & implied besmirching of someone's name.

Arrogant-One
22-06-2006, 05:36 PM
What you have exactly failed to do is acknowledge that :
1) I raised the issue and spoke on behalf of CAQ, not Graeme
2) Graeme [only because he happened to be in the next room] was invited to speak in further support
3) Graeme may have other motives for raising this issue such as he may feel his work with juniors is compounding the problem, and so he is looking to assist seniors by supplying a more accurate and more reliable record of juniors ratings.

Had you gone through the correct channels first, say,
1. Writing to Graeme
2. Putting your original position in a more balanced way

We would not have yet another obfuscated & implied besmirching of someone's name.

Nobody's name is besmirched Howard. These appear to be the facts:

1. The idea to abolish rapid fees originated with Graeme (Dennis said so).
2. The abolishment has enhanced Gardiner Chess' ability to make profit.

Nobody begrudges Graeme Gardiner making a profit except perhaps yourself, but let it be transparent - Oh, I forgot, the CAQ doesn't act transparently. Sorry Howard, my mistake.

Arrogant-One
22-06-2006, 05:38 PM
Please be more careful with the truth. Your point (a) is not what I said.

DJ


The matter was put to the National Conference by the Queensland delegates and Graeme was given leave to address the Conference. I believe that the idea was initiated by him but there was no indication that it was for the reason you suggest.

DJ
This is exactly what you said DJ. :D

Arrogant-One
22-06-2006, 05:41 PM
Your forgot to mention:

c) GG is formerly from England, so obviously any actions he takes can be interpreted by the conspiratoriously minded as a direct act to bring Australia down from the inside.
You're trying to create a distraction because I have inadvertently aired dirty laundry that your friend Howard Duggan didn't want aired.

Basil
22-06-2006, 07:45 PM
Dirty Laundry?
WTF are you talking about?

You're an incompetent boob, Alex.

We are reducing fees for kids.
We are trying to make the system uniform [national].
We are trying to make the ratings more accurate.

How you can take this proactive position, supported nationally, and turn it into diatribe about:
- closed shop
- Graeme's pocket
- and a general kicking of the CAQ, defies belief.

You are an utter moron.

Denis_Jessop
22-06-2006, 09:15 PM
This is exactly what you said DJ. :D

But it was not what you said I said. What I believe and what Graeme told the Conference are two quite different things. I have heard you are a solicitor and so you should know something more about such matters than you have so far demonstrated.

This matter is now closed and no further correspondence will be entered into.

DJ

Garvinator
23-06-2006, 12:43 AM
This matter is now closed and no further correspondence will be entered into.

DJ
I really dont think that you saying that the matter is closed will stop anyone trying to dig up dirt :P ;)

Arrogant-One
23-06-2006, 12:20 PM
Dirty Laundry?
WTF are you talking about?

You're an incompetent boob, Alex.

We are reducing fees for kids.
We are trying to make the system uniform [national].
We are trying to make the ratings more accurate.

How you can take this proactive position, supported nationally, and turn it into diatribe about:
- closed shop
- Graeme's pocket
- and a general kicking of the CAQ, defies belief.

You are an utter moron.

Howard,

Let me firstly put our new budding friendship on the shelf for a moment, so that the fragile progress we have made thus far is not damaged.

Firstly, calling someone an 'incompetent boob' when you are the 'incompetent boob' is, at best, the pot calling the kettle black.

Now, lets disect your post more thoroughly.




We are reducing fees for kids.
We are trying to make the system uniform [national].
We are trying to make the ratings more accurate.



I will presume, as you are the CAQ President, that the "we" mentioned three times above is the CAQ.

Now, your first argument "we are reducing fees for kids".

Hogwash! The ACF is reducing fees for all rapid players, not just juniors. - Strike 1

Your second argument "we are trying to make the system uniform [national].".

Hogwash! The previous system was national and uniform, that system being that everyone paid a rating fee for their rapid games. - Strike 2

Now your third argument, "we are trying to make the ratings more accurate.".

Hogwash! If this was the CAQ's or ACF's goal the way to achieve it would be to use a different formula from the current Glicko one or the previous Elo one.
- Strike 3

You struck out you incompetent boob!

But before I go let me further disect your other ridiculous arguments.


How you can take this proactive position, supported nationally, and turn it into diatribe about:
- closed shop
- Graeme's pocket
- and a general kicking of the CAQ, defies belief.

You are an utter moron

Firstly, you call my observations a diatribe. It should not, if you are honest with yourself, surprise you to learn that I first encountered the perception that Graeme pushed the change for the benefit of his club from other chess players - that idea did not originate with me.

That said you seem to think I have a problem with Graeme benefiting from the change via the improved trading/commercial advantage to Gardiner Chess.

I do not!

That is completely untrue and Graeme Gardiner has done more for chess than you will ever achieve in your lifetime. Moreover, as you already know full well, I also subscribe to Graeme's view that the CAQ and ACF should do more to make chess cheaper.

You will recall that I advocated halving the excessive CAQ yearly annual membership fee from $10 to $5 - something you ridiculed me for. Or have you forgotten?

I could continue here, but if I do so I think it will hurt your little head and cause you to think for a change instead of simply responding with your usual purile venom (the way you handle all such criticism from anybody regardless of the veracity of that criticism).

Arrogant-One
23-06-2006, 12:28 PM
But it was not what you said I said. What I believe and what Graeme told the Conference are two quite different things. I have heard you are a solicitor and so you should know something more about such matters than you have so far demonstrated.DJ

Hi Dennis,

I will quickly cover a couple points which I think have caused a bit of confusion.

Firstly, I am not a practising solicitor anymore. I may re-enter that field sometime in the future but am not practising at present.

Secondly, when you used one sentence to make the following two points:

a.) That Mr Gardiner originated the idea to cut the rapid fee; and
b.) That he addressed the National Conference

I drew the conclusion that the two were intertwined. It was not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but it appears that it was in fact an inaccurate conclusion.

As such I invite you to reclarify what exactly it was that you tried to say because I seem to have misunderstood your post.

Desmond
23-06-2006, 12:32 PM
Hogwash! The ACF is reducing fees for all juniors, not just kids. - Strike 1

Please outline what characterises the group of individuals that you claim are juniors but not kids.

antichrist
23-06-2006, 12:34 PM
Listen Bannabenders, there is a fortunate to be made in bananas at the moment if you let yourselves get distracted.

Arrogant-One
23-06-2006, 02:20 PM
Please outline what characterises the group of individuals that you claim are juniors but not kids.

The point I was making was that not all rapid players are juniors. Please re-read my post if you have further queries. :cool:

four four two
23-06-2006, 02:56 PM
Firstly, I am not a practising solicitor anymore. I may re-enter that field sometime in the future but am not practising at present.


:hmm: :eek: :P :whistle:

Basil
23-06-2006, 03:01 PM
... :eek:

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2006, 04:15 PM
Now your third argument, "we are trying to make the ratings more accurate.".

Hogwash! If this was the CAQ's or ACF's goal the way to achieve it would be to use a different formula from the current Glicko one or the previous Elo one.
- Strike 3

Can we get a better ref? Another way to make ratings more accurate is to rate more games and removing the fee on rating them was seen as a way to accomplish this.

Desmond
23-06-2006, 07:21 PM
The point I was making was that not all rapid players are juniors. Please re-read my post if you have further queries. :cool:
Since the free rating of rapid tournaments applies to juniors and the rest alike, where exactly is the supposed unfair advantage given to juniors?

Rincewind
23-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Since the free rating of rapid tournaments applies to juniors and the rest alike, where exactly is the supposed unfair advantage given to juniors?

I'm guessing here but maybe AO is arguing that since juniors play more rapids than adults (assumption #1) then abolishing the rapid rating fee is biased towards juniors. Personally I think this is drawing a long bow. I think the take up of rapid rating of tournaments was such that rating rapid tournaments was of more benefit to the ACF than it was to the tournament organisers and the invisible hand of the market wove its magic.

Basil
23-06-2006, 10:56 PM
Alex, Let me do you slowly, by the numbers, one at a time. Your first post mentioning Graeme Gardiner is:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108022&postcount=14

It clearly suggests that the abolition of admin fees was at the behest of Graeme. It also suggests that his motivation was one of financial gain.

And then after Denis clarified, you supplied this:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108163&postcount=16

Again leaving the cloud over Graeme.

I then posted this, taking exception to your muddying Graeme's name:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108170&postcount=17

You then go on to deny having besmirched Graeme's name, and manage to suggest that I have!:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108222&postcount=22

You're an obfuscating dribbler.

antichrist
23-06-2006, 11:38 PM
in this flamewar who are the idiots, morons, sucking savs, etc

bergil
23-06-2006, 11:41 PM
in this flamewar who are the idiots, morons, sucking savs, etc
Do you mean besides you? :lol:

antichrist
23-06-2006, 11:58 PM
They argue here like those pansies in AFL who only grab shirts - no blood on the BB.

antichrist
24-06-2006, 12:04 AM
I find it a bit difficult getting a handle on these CAQ characters, HD and AO and Belthasar. Are they from different planets who landed on alien Qld?

Alan Shore
25-06-2006, 09:18 PM
Gee.. it's nice to see people already have decided to make judgements about what happened before asking me for any kind of defence. :rolleyes:

The low down is this:

1/ The participants were not informed in person these tournaments were going to be rated (the arbiter claims an email was sent, yet this email only states there would be discussion about whether they would be rated). Given no one I know received this email, no discussion was undertaken.
2/ They were submitted by an arbiter/player in the tournament who gained points as a result.
3/ They were submitted without the knowledge of the tournament organiser.
4/ Tournaments of this nature have been played many times in the past and have not been rated.
5/ Not all tournaments were played under what you might call 'proper tournament conditions'.

Any rating gain/loss by participants is irrelevant. Personally I don't give a crap about my rating itself - I have been in effective retirement from rated tournaments since March last year, so it can be whatever it wants to be. The point is, protocol was not followed, hence the tournaments should not have been rated. I have pursued the proper channels in investigating this and we are waiting on a resolution. So there it is.

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 09:23 PM
Gee.. it's nice to see people already have decided to make judgements about what happened before asking me for any kind of defence. :rolleyes:

You must be talking about AC and HD who's posts I do not read. I clearly asked for your input, and early on when I posted...


The following question might be best answered by the man himself, but if Belty had known the event was going to be submitted for rating prior to participating, what would he have done differently and why?

Care to comment?

Bill Gletsos
25-06-2006, 09:25 PM
2/ They were submitted by an arbiter/player in the tournament who gained points as a result.I think you will find he actually lost rating points.

[3/ They were submitted without the knowledge of the tournament organiser.Who was the organiser.

[4/ Tournaments of this nature have been played many times in the past and have not been rated.Perhaps they were not prepared to pay the rating fee applicable at the time.

Alan Shore
25-06-2006, 09:28 PM
The following question might be best answered by the man himself, but if Belty had known the event was going to be submitted for rating prior to participating, what would he have done differently and why?

Care to comment?

I have retired from competitive chess. Thus I would not have played if I had been aware the tourns were going to be rated.

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 09:30 PM
I have retired from competitive chess. Thus I would not have played if I had been aware the tourns were going to be rated.

So by "competitive" you mean "rated"?

Alan Shore
25-06-2006, 09:31 PM
I think you will find he actually lost rating points.

My bad then. You can scratch that. I have no idea why he submitted them in the first place if that was not the reason.



Who was the organiser.

Nikolas Moore.


Perhaps they were not prepared to pay the rating fee applicable at the time.

No, our club has always maintained a purely social atmosphere (it's right next to the uni bar, which always helps!). There was never any desire from any of the players to have the tournaments rated that they made known.

Alan Shore
25-06-2006, 09:32 PM
So by "competitive" you mean "rated"?

Basically. Those uni tourns were the only things I've played in the past year, bar the very occasional game on FICS, or some suicide chess with Alex. I played cos they were free entry and you get chocolate for top 3 places, woo.

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 09:35 PM
Basically. Those uni tourns were the only things I've played in the past year, bar the very occasional game on FICS, or some suicide chess with Alex. I played cos they were free entry and you get chocolate for top 3 places, woo.

In that case my unsavoury interest has been sated and you're off the hook. ;)

Now lets organise a lynching party for this DOP. :)

Arrogant-One
26-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Alex, Let me do you slowly, by the numbers, one at a time.
Slow people go slowly, so you go as slow as you like Howard.


Your first post mentioning Graeme Gardiner is:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108022&postcount=14

It clearly suggests that the abolition of admin fees was at the behest of Graeme. It also suggests that his motivation was one of financial gain.
Wrong again Howard. You should be paying me to be your tutor and having to correct you all the time. I propose $500 HCD per session.

My post ( which link you provided above) does nothing more than attempt to atest to the veracity of a rumour. Please notice the question mark which concluded the sentence.


And then after Denis clarified, you supplied this:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108163&postcount=16

Again leaving the cloud over Graeme.
Well, you're improving a bit. I did post the link above. But thats about as far as you got this time. The fact remains that Dennis didn't concisively refute the question with a clear answer.


You then go on to deny having besmirched Graeme's name, and manage to suggest that I have!:
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108222&postcount=22
Asking a query of the ACF president and then analysing his scant answer by failing to dismiss a possibility is not tantamount to besmirching someone's name. You continue to overlook the fact that IF IT WAS TRUE THAT GRAEME ADVOCATED THE CHANGE this would NOT be sordid in any way whatsoever. When you took issue with the original query you intentionally or inadvertently suggested otherwise.


You're an obfuscating dribbler.
Well you're still an incompetent boob, so what's your point?

Arrogant-One
26-06-2006, 01:54 PM
I think you will find he actually lost rating points.
Who was the organiser.
Perhaps they were not prepared to pay the rating fee applicable at the time.
I'll be damned!!! Bill Gletsos has prepared a well thought out and decisive post! Congratulations Bill.

I guess this proves the old adage than even a blind monkey sometimes finds a banana.

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2006, 02:41 PM
I'll be damned!!! Bill Gletsos has prepared a well thought out and decisive post! Congratulations Bill.I understand you being damned as it is clear the concept of a well thought out and decisive post is totally foreign to you.

I guess this proves the old adage than even a blind monkey sometimes finds a banana.******* by name, .ool by nature. :owned:

Basil
26-06-2006, 07:51 PM
Haste makes waste Howard, so you go as slowly as you like.
Dribble as much as you like. Your posts were trolling Graeme.

You were using unidentified sources suggesting a motivation behind his support of a genuine plan.

You are a revolting specimen.

Arrogant-One
27-06-2006, 01:43 PM
You are a revolting specimen.
You are an incompetent boob, but I don't adminish you for it, and so you abuse my generosity.

Arrogant-One
27-06-2006, 01:48 PM
I understand you being damned as it is clear the concept of a well thought out and decisive post is totally foreign to you.
[Alex's surname] by name, .ool by nature. :owned:

Hahahah, you are sooooo funny Bill. What a sharp wit you have, please share - please!

Basil
27-06-2006, 01:53 PM
Hahahah, you are sooooo funny Bill. What a sharp wit you have. Please share - please!
Yes he is.
Yes he has.
Yes he does.

Arrogant-One
27-06-2006, 03:08 PM
You must be talking about AC and HD who's posts I do not read.
Care to elaborate on why you choose not to read them?

Rincewind
27-06-2006, 05:03 PM
Care to elaborate on why you choose not to read them?

The benefit in terms of time saved far outweighs the cost of not hearing what they have to say. In fact, that is rather a dubious use of the word cost, so much so that you might term the equation a win-win scenario. :)

Arrogant-One
05-07-2006, 03:23 PM
The benefit in terms of time saved far outweighs the cost of not hearing what they have to say. In fact, that is rather a dubious use of the word cost, so much so that you might term the equation a win-win scenario. :)
Yes, but most of what they say is comical. You read the comics, don't you? How is reading the posts of HD or AC any different?

Arrogant-One
05-07-2006, 03:26 PM
You were using unidentified sources suggesting ....
A good journalist maintains the confidentiality of his/her sources.

I shouldn't have to tell you something so self evident, but if the shoe fits ....

Rincewind
05-07-2006, 05:26 PM
Yes, but most of what they say is comical. You read the comics, don't you? How is reading the posts of HD or AC any different?

The comics are trying to be funny. Self-lampooning posts can be amusing but the novelty soon wanes.