PDA

View Full Version : Commonwealth Chess Championships (Includes Call for Applications)



Kevin Bonham
29-08-2007, 08:39 PM
APPLICATIONS OPEN: COMMONWEALTH CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS, 2-10 DECEMBER 2007

The FIDE Commonwealth Chess Championships will be held by the All India Chess Federation in New Delhi from 2-10 December 2007.

Australia is eligible to field one official representatives in each of the following divisions: open male, open female, and one male and female in each of the following junior age groups: U20, U18, U16, U14, U12, U10, U8. Official representatives receive free boarding and lodging. Information on the event may be found in a prospectus which may be downloaded from http://www.indianchessfed.org/ .

Any player wishing to apply to represent Australia in any of these divisions (adult or junior) must email me at k_bonham@tassie.net.au by the closing date for applications of 14 September 2007. Please phone (03)6224 8487 if your application has not been acknowledged within seven days of sending it. Please note that although I am not the Junior Selection Co-Ordinator, I have agreed to receive applications for this event pending the appointment of a new JSC.

Any junior player wishing to apply for the Open division or for an age group above their own, and/or any female player wishing to apply for a "male" division must explicitly state this in their application.

Applications must include all the information listed in Section 5.4 of the ACF Selections By-Laws which may be found at http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/Selection_Procedures_By-law.txt . Applicants may provide information on their results and/or a supporting statement to the extent allowed by sections 5.6 and 5.7.

All applicants are encouraged to retain a copy of their application. Applications that are late because of claimed email transmission problems will not be considered unless accompanied by a copy of the original application email and a letter from the applicant's Internet Service Provider confirming that the application was sent in time.

Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Senior Events)

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2007, 10:29 PM
Applications have been extended to 28 Sep because the ACF Newsletter has not been released in time to give sufficient notice of the previous deadline, and because I will be on leave from everything remotely resembling work, for several days commencing 20 Sep.

Apologies for any inconvenience thus created.

Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Senior Events)

Mischa
30-09-2007, 10:00 PM
any list of the applicants?

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 11:29 AM
any list of the applicants?

In the open division Smerdon, Zhao and Goldenberg have applied; a selection will be held with result expected in about 2 weeks.

Junior applications received on time are from James Morris (U14), Harry Hughes (U8), Ben Harris (U16) and Rebecca Harris (Girls U20). As there is still no Junior Selection Co-Ordinator appointed, I have moved a motion to Council that these all be selected, outcome expected in 7-14 days.

Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Non-Junior events)

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2007, 10:05 PM
Regrettably James Morris' application has had to be withdrawn because of parental work commitments. The deadline for selectors' votes for the Open division is 16 October and I now expect motions concerning other appointments to be dealt with at the ACF Council meeting on 22 October.

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2007, 11:55 PM
In the open division Smerdon, Zhao and Goldenberg have applied; a selection will be held with result expected in about 2 weeks.

The provisional ranking (subject to appeal for the next seven days) was 1. IM Zong Yuan Zhao 2. IM David Smerdon 3. FM Igor Goldenberg. My thanks on behalf of the ACF to the selectors who were: IM Guy West, Ian Rout, FM Geoff Saw, FM Brett Tindall, FM Tim Reilly.

The ACF has appointed Rebecca Harris (Girls U18 not U20 as previously stated), Benjamin Harris (U16) and Harry Hughes (U8) as representatives, as the only applicants in their division by the due date. As previously advised, FM James Morris' application for the U14 unfortunately had to be withdrawn.

Following slightly late expressions of interest, the ACF has appointed Shannon Oliver and Gareth Oliver as representatives for the Womens and U20 divisions, which were not filled by the due date, respectively.

On behalf of the ACF I thank all candidates for their patience with the selection processes and interest in representing their country.

Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Non-Junior events)

wii
19-10-2007, 01:21 AM
Did anyone else apply for the Under 20 Open section at all as well as all the other vacant situations.

wii

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2007, 07:14 PM
IM Zong Yuan Zhao has declined his position as Australian representative because of difficulties finding transport between different major events. His place has been offered to IM David Smerdon.

Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Non-Junior Events)


Did anyone else apply for the Under 20 Open section at all as well as all the other vacant situations.

There was another expression of interest for U20 but it was 17 days after the applications deadline and by the time I received it, Gareth Oliver had already been appointed.

A late expression of interest for another division will be considered at Monday night's ACF Council meeting.

Aside from these there were no other late expressions of interest.

Garvinator
20-10-2007, 02:14 AM
Is this strictly an applications thread?

Brian_Jones
20-10-2007, 08:13 AM
A late expression of interest for another division will be considered at Monday night's ACF Council meeting.

Why does it need an ACF Council Meeting to consider a routine selection issue?

The ACF Council should be spending its valuable time considering important strategic issues.

Basil
20-10-2007, 08:20 AM
The ACF Council should be spending its valuable time considering important strategic issues.
Such as? And do what what with them? Pass the resolutions to the states for consideration :wall:

Reminds me, must send e-mail. Look out for the gold Brian - headed your way. Go the Gunners.

Denis_Jessop
20-10-2007, 11:58 AM
Why does it need an ACF Council Meeting to consider a routine selection issue?

The ACF Council should be spending its valuable time considering important strategic issues.

Because the by-laws forbid late applications except in limited circumstances that do not cover this matter and so it needs Council approval. It's no big deal and won't take up much time.

I agree that the Council should be considering important strategic issues but that needs someone to initiate discussion on them. Now that I do not have the burden of the Newsletter I may be able to enliven things but I'd rather not comment beyond that as things stand at present.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
20-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Smerdon has accepted his offer of a place.


Is this strictly an applications thread?

No - since the thread title is "Commonwealth Chess Championships (Includes Call for Applications)" anyone can comment on anything to do with the event. Once the application (and late expression of interest etc) cycle is over I'll de-sticky it.


Why does it need an ACF Council Meeting to consider a routine selection issue?

Firstly because this is not a routine selection issue but a case of a late application of interest for an unfilled place. These are not covered in the current Selection By-Laws in any way although I am working on mechanisms by which they at some stage might be!

Secondly because the position of Junior Selection Co-Ordinator is currently still vacant pending appointment of one or more applicants or a possible restucture of the selection co-ordinator system. So if the mechanism above was in place, it would still probably involve the JSC appointing selectors to rule on whether the applicant was strong enough to be selected. Since there is no JSC, this must be done by Council, just as the votes to appoint those junior players who applied on time had to be done by Council.


The ACF Council should be spending its valuable time considering important strategic issues.

I suspect the remaining selection-related matter will be disposed of in rather less than five minutes, although I could be wrong about this.

Brian_Jones
20-10-2007, 12:42 PM
Firstly because this is not a routine selection issue but a case of a late application of interest for an unfilled place. These are not covered in the current Selection By-Laws in any way although I am working on mechanisms by which they at some stage might be!
Just make a decision Kevin (and get the by-laws binned!) :)


Secondly because the position of Junior Selection Co-Ordinator is currently still vacant pending appointment of one or more applicants or a possible restucture of the selection co-ordinator system. So if the mechanism above was in place, it would still probably involve the JSC appointing selectors to rule on whether the applicant was strong enough to be selected. Since there is no JSC, this must be done by Council, just as the votes to appoint those junior players who applied on time had to be done by Council.
Kevin, I've read this several times and it sounds just like Yes Minister. :D
Have you thought about applying for job in Canberra? ;)

Garvinator
20-10-2007, 12:45 PM
No - since the thread title is "Commonwealth Chess Championships (Includes Call for Applications)" anyone can comment on anything to do with the event. Once the application (and late expression of interest etc) cycle is over I'll de-sticky it.
Beautiful.

In Nigel Short's latest interview regarding the Commonwealth Championships, he says this about Zurab Azmaiparashvili.


They could start by removing some personnel: the head-butting, move-retracting, tournament-rigging, Zurab Azmaiparashvili for instance. He is a disgrace to the organisation. But never let it be said that he is a dunderhead.

Now I wonder if fide will be taking any action over this :whistle:

Denis_Jessop
20-10-2007, 05:38 PM
Just make a decision Kevin (and get the by-laws binned!) :)


Kevin, I've read this several times and it sounds just like Yes Minister. :D
Have you thought about applying for job in Canberra? ;)

Hold on Brian. What you seem to be saying is just go ahead and act unlawfully. Can you seriously mean this? John McEnroe would be astounded. Such conduct might work in business but, even there, the consequences can be pretty nasty - big fines and the odd gaol sentence..

DJ

Kevin Bonham
20-10-2007, 06:13 PM
Kevin, I've read this several times and it sounds just like Yes Minister. :D
Have you thought about applying for job in Canberra? ;)

I dunno, have you thought about applying for a job in Panama or Columbia? :rolleyes:

The circumstances surrounding having a selection where I can't act on some of the applications I receive may sound "Yes Minister" to you, but I didn't create that situation, except by making it clear that I was not willing to be the selection co-ordinator for both adult and junior events at the same time!

Junior selections are therefore out of my department - I just agreed to receive them and pass them on in this case because the JSC spot was temporarily vacant and someone needed to act as a receiver for applications.

Next time such a situation arises I will refuse, and move that Brian Jones be offered the responsibility instead. :lol:

Basil
20-10-2007, 09:55 PM
Can you seriously mean this? John McEnroe would be astounded.
LMFAO. 50 HCDs! Fargit make it 70. I haven't read anything that dry since the CAQ minutes prior to AO's short-lived involvement.

Brian_Jones
21-10-2007, 08:19 AM
Hold on Brian. What you seem to be saying is just go ahead and act unlawfully. Can you seriously mean this? John McEnroe would be astounded. Such conduct might work in business but, even there, the consequences can be pretty nasty - big fines and the odd gaol sentence..

DJ

You already know my solution Denis. Scrap all the ACF by-laws forthwith (if not sooner!).

And let managers get on with managing the ACF business! :rolleyes:

Brian_Jones
21-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Junior selections are therefore out of my department - I just agreed to receive them and pass them on in this case because the JSC spot was temporarily vacant and someone needed to act as a receiver for applications. Next time such a situation arises I will refuse, and move that Brian Jones be offered the responsibility instead. :lol:

What. You want to give me more jobs as well as Grand Prix Director, Special Projects Officer and publisher of Australian Chess magazine. :eek:

What is wrong with applications going to the ACF Secretary and/or official ACF address where all the correspondence should go?

The only question then is finding a person to do the real work. Maybe we should analyse the responsibilities and actual work done by every individual member of the ACF Executive. Maybe even the ACF councillors?

Or does everyone want to just attend meetings, read minutes and talk? Someone from the Executive should volunteer to produce the Newsletter? Maybe the President? Or do we just have our priorities all wrong?

Basil
21-10-2007, 12:32 PM
What. You want to give me more jobs as well as Grand Prix Director, Special Projects Officer and publisher of Australian Chess magazine. :eek:
Come of it Brian. No-one is giving you any more jobs - unless you're complaining about the few that are already doing them. Start picking on the other 99%. And definitely don't include your own private enterprise.

Oh hang you get to that ...


The only question then is finding a person to do the real work. Maybe we should analyse the responsibilities and actual work done by every individual member of the ACF Executive. Maybe even the ACF councillors?
Maybe you should pick on the other 99%


Or does everyone want to just attend meetings, read minutes and talk? Someone from the Executive should volunteer to produce the Newsletter? Maybe the President? Or do we just have our priorities all wrong?
No. You do.

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2007, 01:26 PM
What. You want to give me more jobs as well as Grand Prix Director, Special Projects Officer and publisher of Australian Chess magazine. :eek:

Well if you keep spending your time telling me how to do my jobs in public then I can only conclude that you have too much time on your hands!


What is wrong with applications going to the ACF Secretary and/or official ACF address where all the correspondence should go?

What difference does it make where the applications go? The Secretary has enough work as it is and I'm experienced in receiving selection applications and dealing with the questions that come with them.


The only question then is finding a person to do the real work.

Yes, and I've already dealt with this, but you were too busy connecting this to your pet hobbyhorses to pay attention.

So let me spell it out again:

* The Junior Selection Co-Ordinator position was vacated by the resignation of Brett Tindall.

*There were multiple applicants for the position.

* At the same time there is a view that the position needs restructuring anyway to prevent some of the problems that have happened with junior selections in the past.

* Either there will be a restructure or there won't, and in either case someone will be doing the real work associated with junior selections soon.

* In the meantime, Council is doing the work of approving the applications, which is taking it rather less effort than I have had to waste on explaining all this to you!


Maybe we should analyse the responsibilities and actual work done by every individual member of the ACF Executive. Maybe even the ACF councillors?

Feel free to go ahead and do just that. If it goes anywhere but waffle, it will go to another restructure of exactly the sort that you deride as "Yes Minister" stuff, the discussion of which will clog up still more time in meetings!


Or does everyone want to just attend meetings, read minutes and talk?

Well why would they want to do that when they can come here and just talk with you about whether there is too much talking? :rolleyes:


Someone from the Executive should volunteer to produce the Newsletter? Maybe the President? Or do we just have our priorities all wrong?

Discuss it on the Newsletter thread then. You're just going further and further off-topic.

Capablanca-Fan
21-10-2007, 02:53 PM
Why do we have selection at all? Why not go by rating? It would have the merit of being totally transparent. This is not to disparage any specific selections or selectors, since the ones I'm aware of seem very fair.

Brian_Jones
21-10-2007, 03:31 PM
Well if you keep spending your time telling me how to do my jobs in public then I can only conclude that you have too much time on your hands!

So you come up with the same issue as Gunner. You don't like to receive criticism in public - you want it all washed under the carpet!

But where else can people discuss the real issues? The ACF is a closed shop and the States don't ask or tell their members anything?

Tell us Kevin - what has the new ACF President achieved in the past 9 months?

Maybe one day (soon) we should really make an effort to change the structure. Come back Matt all is forgiven (or almost). :evil:

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2007, 04:25 PM
So you come up with the same issue as Gunner. You don't like to receive criticism in public - you want it all washed under the carpet!

Wrong. Complete non sequitur. I am happy to receive criticism in public but where I think the criticism is a silly waste of time I reserve the right to suggest that the critic do the work!


But where else can people discuss the real issues? The ACF is a closed shop and the States don't ask or tell their members anything?

Tell us Kevin - what has the new ACF President achieved in the past 9 months?

Maybe one day (soon) we should really make an effort to change the structure. Come back Matt all is forgiven (or almost). :evil:

You're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic.

Start a new thread if you really care; I can't be bothered sawing the legs off your constantly repeated hobbyhorses if you can't be bothered to put them in the right stalls. :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2007, 04:33 PM
Why do we have selection at all? Why not go by rating? It would have the merit of being totally transparent.

Selection by rating only is indeed transparent, but is extremely prone to manipulation. Players may deliberately stall on high or inactive ratings, or avoid playing in events where they feel they could lose ratings points, to get selected. Glicko-2 eliminates a lot of the slow-response problems of ELO but is somewhat volatile, meaning that one shocker at the wrong time by a player with a good long-term record could see them miss selection.

There are ways around that (eg some combination of average rating over points in the last year and an activity requirement) - the US has used some kind of ratings-based system for Olympiad selections like that, but I remember one case where it was widely blamed for very bad results.

Of course, it's up to the ACF Council to determine what system is used, so if Council prefers a rating-only system at some stage it would certainly make my job easier! However that is not a good reason to do it.

When there is not time to form a selection panel, an average of ACF and FIDE ratings is used.

Denis_Jessop
21-10-2007, 04:55 PM
You already know my solution Denis. Scrap all the ACF by-laws forthwith (if not sooner!).

And let managers get on with managing the ACF business! :rolleyes:

Actually Brian, I don't recall your ever having told me that you favour scrapping the ACF by-laws. I also do not see why that is thought to be necessary. It would not help the ACF to manage things any better. And one important purpose of the By-laws its to let the chess playing public and others interested knw what procedures apply to the various things with which the by-laws deal. It's a bit like saying that all laws in society should be abolished. Things just don't work that way. Moreover, if the by-laws were abolished that would help to promote the ACF as a secret society which i believe is something you oppose. Not only would nobody be told what was happening but nobody would even know what was supposed to be happening.

DJ

Basil
21-10-2007, 07:35 PM
So you come up with the same issue as Gunner.
No. I said pick on the other 99%. Kevin said you appear to have time on your hands.


You don't like to receive criticism in public - you want it all washed under the carpet!
Balderdash. This is the same dribble that Laurel and Hardy trotted out regarding Queensland politics. In both cases, unsubstantiated. What exactly does Kevin want washed under the carpet? And where's your proof?


The ACF is a closed shop and the States don't ask or tell their members anything?
Huh? What has this got to do with this thread? Or are you blaming Kevin?


Maybe one day (soon) we should really make an effort to change the structure.
Kevin has worked previously in favour of this very goal.

Brian, you're dribbling all over the shop. This entire line of yours started with your questioning of a statement from Kevin that made sense to everyone except you. Thereafter, your offerings have progressed from dripping tap to floodgates.

Brian_Jones
22-10-2007, 07:36 AM
Actually Brian, I don't recall your ever having told me that you favour scrapping the ACF by-laws. I also do not see why that is thought to be necessary. It would not help the ACF to manage things any better. And one important purpose of the By-laws its to let the chess playing public and others interested knw what procedures apply to the various things with which the by-laws deal. It's a bit like saying that all laws in society should be abolished. Things just don't work that way. Moreover, if the by-laws were abolished that would help to promote the ACF as a secret society which i believe is something you oppose. Not only would nobody be told what was happening but nobody would even know what was supposed to be happening.

DJ

Denis. sorry don't agree. People can still organise Australian Championships and pick Australian teams without by-laws. They can still keep the chess community informed.

Kevin and Howard. My general point is that officers should ask the ACF Council for the power to take decisions. After that the Council will have time to move on to consider more important strategic things such as government recognition of chess, sponsorship, tax status, recruitment etc.etc.

Basil
22-10-2007, 10:14 AM
Kevin and Howard. My general point is that officers should ask the ACF Council for the power to take decisions. After that the Council will have time to move on to consider more important strategic things such as government recognition of chess, sponsorship, tax status, recruitment etc.etc.
I like it. I genuinely don't if this is workable under the current system. Would appreciate any pertinent observations.

Notwithstanding, it is abundantly clear we need more people willing to be part of and assist the ACF (VPs plugging newsletter roles :wall:)

Ian Rout
22-10-2007, 11:40 AM
The time taken up in making obvious decisions would be minimal, but a greater issue in this case is the elapsed time in players being told that their selection has been approved. If players could be told this at the earliest opportunity they could start preparing openings, making travel arrangements, organising leave from work etc.

Additionally a number of such issues being in the air at any one time creates fogging and distraction well over and above the mere wasting of small amounts of time.

So I think there is merit in letting officers have discretion to get uncontroversial decisions out of the way. If one or two wrong decisions are taken then that has to be seen in the context of the overall net benefit. I wouldn't advocate Brian's "Let the managers manage" (meaning let the managers behave like cowboys, if you remember the 1980s) but safeguards could be built in; for instance the selections co-ordinator could be required to notify council members, or a sub-committee, of his intentions and the decision only take effect after 24 hours if there were no objections.

Brian_Jones
22-10-2007, 03:00 PM
I think there is merit in letting officers have discretion to get uncontroversial decisions out of the way. If one or two wrong decisions are taken then that has to be seen in the context of the overall net benefit. I wouldn't advocate Brian's "Let the managers manage" (meaning let the managers behave like cowboys, if you remember the 1980s) but safeguards could be built in; for instance the selections co-ordinator could be required to notify council members, or a sub-committee, of his intentions and the decision only take effect after 24 hours if there were no objections.

Although the ACF is a small not-for-profit organisation, it should treat its officers as if they were executives of small public companies.

For example, if the board of a company approved a senior appointment, we would not expect the board to want to second guess all that persons day-to-day decisions.

In my view, the ACF should use a system of delegated responsibilty.

Denis_Jessop
22-10-2007, 04:11 PM
Denis. sorry don't agree. People can still organise Australian Championships and pick Australian teams without by-laws. They can still keep the chess community informed.

Kevin and Howard. My general point is that officers should ask the ACF Council for the power to take decisions. After that the Council will have time to move on to consider more important strategic things such as government recognition of chess, sponsorship, tax status, recruitment etc.etc.

OMG I didn't pick you as an anarchist before. What's more, things like selection procedure are governed by law whether one likes it or not and are subject to judicial review as has already happened in the past (Depasquale v. ACF, ACT Supreme Court, 2000). If people know the procedures that are supposed to be followed they will be much more likely to agree with them or to suggest changes. What amazes me is that you still don't seem to appreciate that the course you advocate promotes what you (largely wrongly) perceive as ACF secrecy.

On the last point the error you and other, but less capable, critics of the ACF make is that the ACF is doing heaps of things that everyone should know about and are not being told. The fact is, as I have repeatedly said, the ACF's powers and functions in relation to Australian chess are severely limited and well over 95% of all chess administration on Australia is the responsibility of State Associations. Whether that is a good thing or not is not the question here - the fact is that the situation I have described is what exists. If that is to be changed, you won't achieve it, or anything useful, just by complaining that the ACF is a secret society. It's a catch cry that excites lesser minds like that of Matthew Sweeney but, fundamentally, it is meaningless. If you are genuinely for ACF reform let us hear some ideas of substance - and not, please, merely a plea for an ACF membership scheme which, if anything, is a consequence of more fundamental structural changes, not an end in itself.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
22-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Although the ACF is a small not-for-profit organisation, it should treat its officers as if they were executives of small public companies.

For example, if the board of a company approved a senior appointment, we would not expect the board to want to second guess all that persons day-to-day decisions.

In my view, the ACF should use a system of delegated responsibilty.

It does. You run the GP for the ACF pretty much as you like. Selections are the responsibility of the Selections Co-ordinators (when you can find one), the Ratings Officers do their own thing, the Ergas Elite Junior Development Sguad is autonomous, I was given a free hand as Newsletter Editor and so on.

The current selection matter that seems to causing such excitement is not the kind of thing that will cause the ACF Council much trouble and is, as Kevin has pointed out, an exceptional case. One must have rules for the selection of players and to argue against that is sheer folly. The possibility of successful legal challenge to selections is increased enormously mainly based on denial of procedural fairness in one form or another.

DJ

Brian_Jones
22-10-2007, 05:21 PM
One must have rules for the selection of players and to argue against that is sheer folly. The possibility of successful legal challenge to selections is increased enormously mainly based on denial of procedural fairness in one form or another. DJ

In the past, I have been involved with interview/promotion panels for major companies. There were candidates who passed and those that failed. As long as things were professional and documented, with unsuccessful applicants having the right to appeal, things were OK.

The people making the decisions had to justify their actions. Everything was published and open for inspection. There was no need for secrecy. There was no need for by-laws. It was very easy to document why one applicant was preferred to another.

But when things are done in secret (as many ACF things are) then the applicants lose trust in the selection panel!

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2007, 07:07 PM
Selection by rating only is indeed transparent, but is extremely prone to manipulation. Players may deliberately stall on high or inactive ratings, or avoid playing in events where they feel they could lose ratings points, to get selected. Glicko-2 eliminates a lot of the slow-response problems of ELO but is somewhat volatile, meaning that one shocker at the wrong time by a player with a good long-term record could see them miss selection.
Could there be selection by rating, but with a minimum activity requirement then? [Edit: I see you mention this below]


There are ways around that (eg some combination of average rating over points in the last year
That seems fallacious, because only the current rating is supposed to me a measure of strength, and the calculation of the current rating already takes into account the previous ratings. We got rid of ratings averages in NZ in about 1990 for this reason.


and an activity requirement) the US has used some kind of ratings-based system for Olympiad selections like that, but I remember one case where it was widely blamed for very bad results.
Which one?

....


When there is not time to form a selection panel, an average of ACF and FIDE ratings is used.
That at least is transparent. It would also be transparent if, say, the reigning Australian champ was an automatic place for the Olympiad team.

Basil
22-10-2007, 07:30 PM
In the past, I have been involved with interview/promotion panels for major companies. There were candidates who passed and those that failed. As long as things were professional and documented, with unsuccessful applicants having the right to appeal, things were OK.

The people making the decisions had to justify their actions. Everything was published and open for inspection. There was no need for secrecy. There was no need for by-laws. It was very easy to document why one applicant was preferred to another.
Excellent!


But when things are done in secret (as many ACF things are) then the applicants lose trust in the selection panel!
Such as?

Denis_Jessop
22-10-2007, 10:06 PM
In the past, I have been involved with interview/promotion panels for major companies. There were candidates who passed and those that failed. As long as things were professional and documented, with unsuccessful applicants having the right to appeal, things were OK.

The people making the decisions had to justify their actions. Everything was published and open for inspection. There was no need for secrecy. There was no need for by-laws. It was very easy to document why one applicant was preferred to another.

But when things are done in secret (as many ACF things are) then the applicants lose trust in the selection panel!

I have had similar experience in the Australian Public Service. I'm inclined to think that job selections are not the same as the selections with which we are dealing. I am also intrigued to see that unsuccessful applicants had a right of appeal. How was that right conferred? And how did the organisation unsure that procedural fairness was accorded to the applicants?

DJ

Brian_Jones
23-10-2007, 08:30 AM
I have had similar experience in the Australian Public Service. I'm inclined to think that job selections are not the same as the selections with which we are dealing. DJ

Why? I'm inclined to to think they are very very similar!



I am also intrigued to see that unsuccessful applicants had a right of appeal. How was that right conferred? And how did the organisation unsure that procedural fairness was accorded to the applicants?
DJ

Audit. Personal interview. Independence of panel. I did not work for the company - I was a management consultant.

Denis_Jessop
23-10-2007, 05:30 PM
Why? I'm inclined to to think they are very very similar!




Audit. Personal interview. Independence of panel. I did not work for the company - I was a management consultant.

Possibly we are at cross-purposes. I am referring to selections of players to represent Australia at overseas events, not appointment of office bearers.

On the second point, I understand that you may not have been fully across their procedures. I was interested in the reference to a right of appeal because you can't have such a right unless it is conferred and it must be conferred by something such as rules or instructions of the organisation, an industrial award, legislation etc. That is, something equivalent to our by-laws. The same goes for many other procedures in any organisation. These things don't just happen by osmosis.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2007, 07:50 PM
My general point is that officers should ask the ACF Council for the power to take decisions. After that the Council will have time to move on to consider more important strategic things such as government recognition of chess, sponsorship, tax status, recruitment etc.etc.

But in this case I am not the officer. I am simply someone who agreed to receive junior applications and pass them on because the position of the responsible officer was vacant.

And while I myself could probably be trusted to get it right taking decisions on my own discretion (since I do not coach any applicants) there have been plenty of problems with junior selections over the past several years where conflict of interest has appeared to contribute to a wrong decision and there appeared a need for more oversight, not less.

Jono - I think it was the 2002 Olympiad where there was lots of criticism in the US over their selection process and its claimed impact on performance.

Denis_Jessop
01-12-2007, 08:13 PM
This event is being hosted by the Delhi Chess Association, running from 2 to 17 December 2007. The web address is http://www.delhichess.com/ (home page)or, even better, http://www.delhichess.com/Commonwealth07.asp.

Live games are promised but note the playing schedule as it varies from day-to-day. Also the Indians have their own special (and quite attractive) version of English, as you may know, and so a few of the pages are still "Under Updation"

There are Open, Women's, Senior's and Junior under-age categories.

As at 28 November there were 280 entrants in all categories. The Australian entries are:

5 Aleksandar Wohl IM AUS Open
15 Shannon Oliver WFM AUS Women
16 Gareth Oliver AUS U-20 (B)
17 David Smerdon IM AUS Open
19 Rebecca Harris WFM AUS U-18 (G)
20 Benjamin Harris AUS U-16 (B)
24 Harry Hughes AUS U-8 (B)
25 Jule Alexendra AUS U-20 (G)
21 Jamie Kenmure AUS U-20 (B)

though I am unsure if Jamie Kenmure is actually going.

It's a much better response from Australian players than last year so good luck to all of them.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2007, 08:18 PM
I should note that both Wohl and Kenmure are not official selections (contrary to at least one media claim in the case of Kenmure). They both apparently managed to get their entries accepted by other means (Wohl, I believe, was offered a place). Of course, I wish them all the best however they got in. The remainder are all official ACF selections and/or appointments subsequent to the selection process.

I'm encouraged by the response to this event, which was assisted by the ACF being advised of the event very well in advance - something that is often not the case.

Denis_Jessop
03-12-2007, 10:25 AM
The pairings for Round 1 are up (done by Swiss Manager) and I note that, although there are several different classes, the event is being run as a big Swiss which makes it a bit tough for the young juniors like Harry Hughes (u8) who has a 2130 opponent.

DJ

Ian Rout
03-12-2007, 11:15 AM
Evidently New Delhi is 5 hours 30 minutes behind current Australian Eastern so it should be possible to see some of the action, depending how much is shown live.

Denis_Jessop
03-12-2007, 02:45 PM
Evidently New Delhi is 5 hours 30 minutes behind current Australian Eastern so it should be possible to see some of the action, depending how much is shown live.

They are showing the top 18 games: Round 1 on now, including David Smerdon's. Play began at 9.30 Delhi time. Round 2 is on later today beginning 16.30 Delhi time.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
03-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Wins for Smerdon, Wohl and Gareth Oliver in Round 1. Gareth is in the top half. Jamie Kenmure forfeited so, as predicted, he didn't make it.

DJ

Watto
04-12-2007, 09:30 AM
Wins for Smerdon, Wohl and Gareth Oliver in Round 1. Gareth is in the top half. Jamie Kenmure forfeited so, as predicted, he didn't make it.

DJ
Also this nice result: Harris Benjamin 2015 0 - 0 IM Sengupta Deep 2447
I didn't look through the whole field but there seem to have been almost no upsets at all and very few draws.

Denis_Jessop
04-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Also this nice result: Harris Benjamin 2015 0 - 0 IM Sengupta Deep 2447
I didn't look through the whole field but there seem to have been almost no upsets at all and very few draws.

Yes. I'm sorry that I didn't mention Ben's result but I checked the results list several times and couldn't see his name. I see he got to play the 9th-seeded GM Neelotpal, Das 2489 for his pains in round 2 though the results are not yet up. Good experience though!

DJ

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 05:51 AM
I note David Smerdon was -/+ in the 4th round. Delhi belly perhaps?

bobby1972
05-12-2007, 08:58 AM
any results

Watto
05-12-2007, 09:30 AM
any results
You can find a link to the official website and results/discussion here. It's in general chess as it started out as a selection thread and has turned into a results thread...
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6831

bobby1972
05-12-2007, 10:00 AM
thanks,i see there a -+ against smerdon for round 3 that means what a forfeit ?

Denis_Jessop
05-12-2007, 11:44 AM
thanks,i see there a -+ against smerdon for round 3 that means what a forfeit ?

That is very likely. I have been told that David has had a very bad attack of food poisoning or the like and is not at all well. That may possibly also explain his round 2 draw against a much lower-rated player as he has been sick for a while.

DJ

PS I see that David is paired in round 4 so that indicates that his forfeit was for an acceptable reason.

Denis_Jessop
05-12-2007, 11:57 AM
The Schedule for the Commonwealth Championships may be of interest to potential major event organisers in Australia -


Tournament Schedule

Arrival 2nd December 2007 at 1200 hrs.

Departure 10th December 2007 at 2000hrs

Rounds

Revised Schedule.

03.12.2007 09.30 hrs. Round 1

03.12.2007 16.30 hrs. Round 2

04.12.2007 14.30 hrs. Round 3

05.12.2007 09.30 hrs. Round 4

05.12.2007 16.30 hrs. Round 5

06.12.2007 14.30 hrs. Round 6

07.12.2007 14.30 hrs. Round 7

08.12.2007 14.30 hrs. Round 8

09.12.2007 14.30 hrs. Round 9

10.12.2007 10.00 hrs. Round 10
16.00 hrs. Prize Distribution Ceremony

I am not sure what the time limit for play is though each player starts with 90 minutes so it's a 90 minutes plus increments - ? game in 90min + 30spm?

DJ.

Denis_Jessop
06-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Rounds 4 and 5 played yesterday saw some good results for the Australians.

Aleks Wohl, David Smerdon , Alex Jule and Harry Hughes all won in rd 4 while Aleks Wohl drew with GM Ganguly and Gareth and Shannon Oliver and Bec and Ben Harris all won in rd5.

After 5 rounds the best placed Australians are Wohl on 4/5, Smerdon on 3.5 (despite his illness forfeit) and Gareth Oliver on 3.

In rd6 today Wohl plays GM Kunte on bd4 and as Smerdon is on bd 20 it seems that only Aleks' game will be on live.

DJ

Desmond
06-12-2007, 04:25 PM
In rd6 today Wohl plays GM Kunte on bd4
Does anyone know if they have met before? Kunte has been down under at least once that I know of.

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2007, 04:30 PM
Aleks Wohl, David Smerdon , Alex Jule and Harry Hughes all won in rd 4 while Aleks Wohl drew with GM Ganguly and Gareth and Shannon Oliver and Bec and Ben Harris all won in rd5.

It is good that Harry has already won a game, and against a player rated 1644, which is not bad going given that Harry is so young and does not even have an ACF main list rating yet.

Brian_Jones
06-12-2007, 04:57 PM
Does anyone know if they have met before? Kunte has been down under at least once that I know of.

And could be here again at Easter!

Denis_Jessop
06-12-2007, 08:48 PM
Does anyone know if they have met before? Kunte has been down under at least once that I know of.

GM Kunte played in the Australian Open 2001 in Canberra but Aleks Wohl did not so they didn't meet then. Aleks plays almost all his chess overseas these days, I think, so they may have met before elsewhere. Some time after he played in Canberra, where he finished equal 3 - 8, Kunte won the British Championship after which the Poms banned all ex-colonials and other foreign types from playing:( ;)

DJ

Denis_Jessop
07-12-2007, 03:55 PM
Round 6 was good for Australia at the top but a bit sad after that.

Aleks Wohl drew with GM Kunte and David Smerdon won so that each is now on 4.5, only a point behind the sole leader, Indian IM Sharma Himanshu, but there are 13 players on 5 and 19 on 4.5.

With 4 rounds to go it's a bit of a lottery.

Aleks has to play another GM - Dibyendu Barua 2491 in rd7 but David is a little more fortunate perhaps in meeting an IM Ponnuswamy Konguvel 2394. Aleks is on Bd 11 and David on Bd14 so both games will be on live as they are showing the first 20 boards. Both Aleks' and David's games from rd 6 are there.

The only other player to score in rd 6 was Bec Harris who won.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
09-12-2007, 11:00 AM
Round 8 was a generally good round for our players. Ben and Bec Harris both won as did Gareth Oliver and under-8 Harry Hughes drew with an English Indian rated 1720 FIDE so Harry now has 1.5.:clap: Shannon Oliver also drew. Further up David Smerdon and Aleks Wohl also drew. It was Aleks' fourth draw in succession, the first three against GMs and this one against a WIM.

Currently the sole leader is Indian IM K Rathnakaran (2433) on 7/8 ahead of 6 players on 6.5 and 13 on 6 with 2 rounds to go. Those 20 top players comprise 3 untitled, 10 IMs, 1 WGM and 6 GMs though the lowest rated is 2340 and the GMs are not "super" so the rating spread is reasonably small.

Note: results are at Chess Results http://chess-results.com/tnr9090.aspx?lan=1 as well as at the Delhi Chess Association site

DJ

Watto
10-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Round 9 was pretty good :) : Wins for Wohl (now on 6.5), Smerdon (on 6; David apparently continues to not feel too well but is getting better), Gareth Oliver (beat IM D.P. Singh and is now on 5.5), Shannon Oliver (beat a 2167 rated player and is on 4.5), Rebecca Harris (also beat a higher rated player and is on 4), Alexandra Jule (on 3.5) and Harry Hughes (now on 2.5).
Benjamin Harris (now on 5) drew with a 2272 rated player.

There are now 4 players sharing the lead on 7.5, followed by 5 players on 7 points; all from India.

Round 10 pairings
7 IM Wohl Aleksandar GM Neelotpal Das (2489)
17 IM Smerdon David WIM Soumya Swaminathan (2244)
36 IM Gokhale Chandrashekhar (2333) Oliver Gareth
72 Nimmy A G (2196) WFM Oliver Shannon
58 FM Singh Rishpal S (2246) Harris Benjamin
96 WFM Harris Rebecca Antonio Viani D'cunha (1988)
103 WIM Jule Alexandra WIM Hamid Rani (2189)
134 Harry Hughes Quinn Joseph R (1758)

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Gareth Oliver (beat IM D.P. Singh and is now on 5.5),

Is this the somewhat controversial DP Singh? (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3595)

Very pleasing results by our delegation so far. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
10-12-2007, 10:45 PM
Is this the somewhat controversial DP Singh? (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3595)That certainly appears to be the case.

He has an interesting ratings slide in his graph on the fide webiste since that chessbase article.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=5007780

Denis_Jessop
11-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Is this the somewhat controversial DP Singh? (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3595)

Very pleasing results by our delegation so far. :clap: :clap: :clap:

In fact a good performance overall as the event finished yesterday.

Alex Wohl met yet another GM for yet another draw - four draws against GMs in 10 rounds.

Final round results and final scores for our players were:

Wohl 0.5 7
Smerdon 1 7
G. Oliver 0.5 6
Ben Harris 0 5
S. Oliver 1 5.5
Bec Harris 0 4
A Jule 0.5 4
H Hughes 0 2.5

All players but David Smerdon (who was very sick for most of the tournament) Alex Jule and Harry Hughes finished higher than their initial ranking spot and Harry doesn't really count as he was one of 23 unrated players who were ranked alphabetically so his performance would have seemed better if he was called Zobel ;) In fact as an u8 he did extremely well. Both the Olivers were far above their ranking - Shannon 66 places and Gareth 39 places above.

Congratulations to the whole squad :clap: :clap: :clap:

DJ

PS Joint winners were

1 13 GM Ramesh R B 2473 IND 8 47
2 1 GM Ganguly Surya Shekhar 2585 IND 8 46

130 of the 282 players scored better than 50%.

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2008, 09:47 PM
Check this out: chessbase has an article on our performances, with photo profiles, here (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4356).

:clap: :clap: :clap: