Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 88
  1. #61
    CC FIDE Master Keong Ang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    1) Does it mean it is a 'secret plan of ACF that is not to be shared with the chess community" ? Sounds like FBI or CIA rather than ACF.
    2) I assume that particular plan was even less appealing than the current arrangement for the Aus Open.
    It was suggested and offered at Melbourne Chess Club back in December 2017, albeit very casual and tentative, to host the Australian Open in the same venue in parallel with Oceania Youth and Juniors 2019 in Auckland, NZ.
    I recall the idea was not rejected on the spot but obviously the possibility of an Aus Open in Auckland happening would be miniscule.

    An Australian Open in Auckland may be less appealing than the current arrangement.

    There would have been other contingency plans.
    IA Keong Ang



    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln

  2. #62
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The Box Hill bid, although for dates similar to those used for the Summer Swiss event, is for a larger scale event, anticipating more entries and including a Minor, and running for nine rounds instead of seven. Thus it is rather inaccurate to say that an existing event has been "annointed".
    Obviously the Summer Swiss will have many more entries if it is called the Australian Open and can offer national titles.

    However an overlooked and serious issue is the devaluing of the Australian Open title, in the same way that the Australian Women's title has been devalued (and is being devalued much further this year).

    Because the ACF could not be bothered putting in the hard yards to organise a regular Australian Women's Championship the decision was made by the ACF in the mid 2000s to call the best female player in the Australian Open the Australian Women's Champion. Of course the title became extremely random and there was one fewer tournament for women in Australia, but it saved the ACF some work. Now the Australian Women's Champion title will go to the winner of the renamed Summer Swiss

    Now the same is happening to the Australian Open title. The Australian Open Champion this year will be the winner of the Summer Swiss. It could have been the winner of any other existing tournament that offered to take over the Australian Open title. Once again, the title is devalued considerably, and a major tournament is lost, but it saves the ACF hosting a separate tournament. As usual, the chessplayers of Australia are the losers, but at least the ACF has less work to do.

    Presumably next year, if no bid for the 2020 Australian Championship falls into the ACF's lap, the Australian Championship title can be offered to the winner of, say, the 2020 Begonia Open in Ballarat which can then be renamed the Australian Championship and perhaps run for an extra day like the Summer Swiss.

    It is a total dereliction of duty by the ACF but, having got away with not running the Australian Women's Championship with no consequences for a decade and a half, why not offload other national championships and ride out the criticism from the pesky chess community?

  3. #63
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    1) Does it mean it is a 'secret plan of ACF that is not to be shared with the chess community" ? Sounds like FBI or CIA rather than ACF.
    A business type like you would understand the concept "commercial in confidence", surely? Something like that.

    2) I assume that particular plan was even less appealing than the current arrangement for the Aus Open.
    Different options were appealing or not appealing in different ways.

  4. #64
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang View Post
    It was suggested and offered at Melbourne Chess Club back in December 2017, albeit very casual and tentative, to host the Australian Open in the same venue in parallel with Oceania Youth and Juniors 2019 in Auckland, NZ.
    Interesting. Can't recall ever hearing of this so that idea was certainly not on my radar!

  5. #65
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Afitz View Post
    If I recall correctly, the event used to run from about the 27th December into early January but changed to start after New Years sometime in the 2000's?
    From a quick flick through old threads it seems the first Champs/Open to start after NYE was 2008. There was one reversion to the old schedule which was Geelong 2012, at the bidder's request.

  6. #66
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Rogers View Post
    However an overlooked and serious issue is the devaluing of the Australian Open title, in the same way that the Australian Women's title has been devalued (and is being devalued much further this year).
    The Australian Women's is best discussed on a separate thread. There is an old thread devoted to it here:

    http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....s-Championship

    I will comment there and anyone else interested in discussing it should do likewise.

  7. #67
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Rogers View Post
    Presumably next year, if no bid for the 2020 Australian Championship falls into the ACF's lap, the Australian Championship title can be offered to the winner of, say, the 2020 Begonia Open in Ballarat which can then be renamed the Australian Championship and perhaps run for an extra day like the Summer Swiss.
    Well that certainly won't happen while they continue with their dodgy acceleration, not to mention clashing with the Tasmanian Championships!

    My view is that the Australian Champion title needs to be based on a very thorough test such as 11 rounds provide because the winner of that title is the National Champion.

    The Australian Open Champion title is simply not a title of a similar kind. It basically just means somebody won a strong international tournament (often doing so on countback). The title winner isn't the "champion" of Australia as such; the title has a mix of Australian and overseas winners, as does the list of winners for the Doeberl Cup.

    Of course it's disappointing that there won't be an 11-round tournament with 9 single-round days in terms of the experience that provides for players. However the "title integrity" argument as applied to the Australian Open is a non-issue as the title "Australian Open Champion" is a curiosity to begin with. Any promotional value it might have is probably the only valid reason not to just abolish it and just call the winner the Australian Open winner.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 07-09-2018 at 10:30 PM.

  8. #68
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Keong Ang View Post
    It was suggested and offered at Melbourne Chess Club back in December 2017, albeit very casual and tentative, to host the Australian Open in the same venue in parallel with Oceania Youth and Juniors 2019 in Auckland, NZ.
    I recall the idea was not rejected on the spot but obviously the possibility of an Aus Open in Auckland happening would be miniscule.

    An Australian Open in Auckland may be less appealing than the current arrangement.

    There would have been other contingency plans.
    LOL...this possibility was rejected...by Her Majesty the Queen over a century ago....
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #69
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    A business type like you would understand the concept "commercial in confidence", surely? Something like that.


    I surely do...I just hope it was worthy of such a secretive approach
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  10. #70
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Well that certainly won't happen while they continue with their dodgy acceleration, not to mention clashing with the Tasmanian Championships!

    My view is that the Australian Champion title needs to be based on a very thorough test such as 11 rounds provide because the winner of that title is the National Champion.

    The Australian Open Champion title is simply not a title of a similar kind. It basically just means somebody won a strong international tournament (often doing so on countback). The title winner isn't the "champion" of Australia as such; the title has a mix of Australian and overseas winners, as does the list of winners for the Doeberl Cup.

    Of course it's disappointing that there won't be an 11-round tournament with 9 single-round days in terms of the experience that provides for players. However the "title integrity" argument as applied to the Australian Open is a non-issue as the title "Australian Open Champion" is a curiosity to begin with. Any promotional value it might have is probably the only valid reason not to just abolish it and just call the winner the Australian Open winner.
    According to Kevin, an ACF official, the Australian Open, with a 50 year tradition, offers a title that is just a curiosity! The title awarded by winning the most demanding international open in Australia is according to Kevin already devalued by including strong foreign players - in the same way, I guess, that the Australian Open tennis title is devalued by including Federer and Nadal.

    I wonder why the mention of the Australian Open's lack of 'title integrity' is only emerging now that the ACF has failed to find a bidder who could hold an independent event. It seems rather too convenient to trash the value of Australian Open title after the ACF has just decided to hand the title to the winner of the Summer Swiss.

    The Australian Open has provided many of the best tournaments in Australian history, and some of the great Australian performances. Over the years, competitors have included every top Australian player and world class players such as the 3 Polgars, Portisch, Browne, Miles, Sax, etc, etc. Not all Australian Opens have been equally strong but the title is definitely one of Australia's most prestigious.

  11. #71
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Rogers View Post
    According to Kevin, an ACF official, the Australian Open, with a 50 year tradition, offers a title that is just a curiosity! The title awarded by winning the most demanding international open in Australia is according to Kevin already devalued by including strong foreign players - in the same way, I guess, that the Australian Open tennis title is devalued by including Federer and Nadal.
    But is the Australian Open the "most demanding international open" in Australia? It is in terms of the normal number of rounds, but in terms of field strength there is a strong argument that the Doeberl Cup - won by the locals just once in the last ten runnings - is at least as strong a title, perhaps even stronger. I have never heard anyone argue that the title of Doeberl winner is diminished by the event being only nine rounds and that it would be better if expanded to eleven. The prestige of the "Australian Open" title wouldn't be diminished one iota if it was awarded to the winner of Doeberl (note: I am not canvassing this as a proposal.)

    The Australian Open tennis is prestigious because of it is one of the year's strongest and most lucrative events. If neither of these things were true the Federers and Nadals would not even play in it. There may be the odd exception but the overseas GMs who play in the Open are mostly not motivated by the burning desire to win the "open championship" of (in many cases) a weaker chess nation than their own. Rather they're interested in the conditions, the field, the costs, the practicality. I doubt that many of them care less what the tournament is called or who has previously won it.

    I wonder why the mention of the Australian Open's lack of 'title integrity' is only emerging now that the ACF has failed to find a bidder who could hold an independent event.
    It's emerging because you made a big deal on it on this thread but in the context of this decision it isn't. But I can add that some people (not necessarily on ACF Council) have from time to time raised the question whether we should even still have an every-second-year Australian Open Championships event at all, as opposed to holding the Australian Championships annually. See eg #3 on this thread.

  12. #72
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    But is the Australian Open the "most demanding international open" in Australia? It is in terms of the normal number of rounds, but in terms of field strength there is a strong argument that the Doeberl Cup - won by the locals just once in the last ten runnings - is at least as strong a title, perhaps even stronger. I have never heard anyone argue that the title of Doeberl winner is diminished by the event being only nine rounds and that it would be better if expanded to eleven. The prestige of the "Australian Open" title wouldn't be diminished one iota if it was awarded to the winner of Doeberl (note: I am not canvassing this as a proposal.)

    The Australian Open tennis is prestigious because of it is one of the year's strongest and most lucrative events. If neither of these things were true the Federers and Nadals would not even play in it. There may be the odd exception but the overseas GMs who play in the Open are mostly not motivated by the burning desire to win the "open championship" of (in many cases) a weaker chess nation than their own. Rather they're interested in the conditions, the field, the costs, the practicality. I doubt that many of them care less what the tournament is called or who has previously won it.



    It's emerging because you made a big deal on it on this thread but in the context of this decision it isn't. But I can add that some people (not necessarily on ACF Council) have from time to time raised the question whether we should even still have an every-second-year Australian Open Championships event at all, as opposed to holding the Australian Championships annually. See eg #3 on this thread.
    I think (Ian can correct me if I am wrong) the main point he is trying to make is: the Australian Open used to be an important event but now (not without ''contributions'' by the ACF) - it is becoming far less significant and its ACF responsibility. Kevin is replying ''Yes, it is not so significant'' rather than discussed the role of the ACF - but I think the question is not what the Aus Open is now...(or is turning into now) - but why is it happening? Why is the Open event is losing its gloss more and more over the years and whether ACF is (at least partially) responsible for it or not?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  13. #73
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    But is the Australian Open the "most demanding international open" in Australia? It is in terms of the normal number of rounds, but in terms of field strength there is a strong argument that the Doeberl Cup - won by the locals just once in the last ten runnings - is at least as strong a title, perhaps even stronger. I have never heard anyone argue that the title of Doeberl winner is diminished by the event being only nine rounds and that it would be better if expanded to eleven. The prestige of the "Australian Open" title wouldn't be diminished one iota if it was awarded to the winner of Doeberl (note: I am not canvassing this as a proposal.)
    The (traditional) Australian Open is far more demanding than any of the five day international opens. You play for a week and a half, meaning that your stamina over a longer period is tested. With one game a day players also have time for serious opening preparation for each opponent, requiring a higher level of play to be successful.
    The Doeberl Cup may sometimes have a stronger field, but is an entirely different style of tournament, requiring different chess skills. It is important in its own right and how you can even suggest that the Australian Open title would not be diminished by giving it to the Doeberl Cup winner is bizarre.
    Of course if you run any event down until people don't care as much about it - e.g. by running it at twice the speed - you can then make an argument for abolishing it. All your posts trashing the Australian Open title seem to be pointing towards that as a desired outcome. Certainly it would be less work for the ACF, with no Australian Open or Australian Women's Championship to organise any more.
    I would suggest that the ACF should be organising more national events, not fewer. For example, many other Federations have stand-alone national championships for women, seniors (+50 and +65 categories), and disabled players and of course FIDE has world titles in these categories. There are plenty of ways for the ACF to start going forwards.

  14. #74
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Rogers View Post
    The (traditional) Australian Open is far more demanding than any of the five day international opens. You play for a week and a half, meaning that your stamina over a longer period is tested.
    But that said you also have a lot more recovery time between games than in an event with four double-round days. Clearly many players find even one double-round day exhausting.

    With one game a day players also have time for serious opening preparation for each opponent, requiring a higher level of play to be successful.
    One would hope so. But this also means a lesser test of versatility and adaptability compared to a situation in which a player does not know who their opponent is until shortly before four of their games, and therefore has to either be capable of making practical decisions about openings either very quickly or else by advance preparation for a wide range of opponents. So again, which is more demanding is debateable. They are both demanding in different ways.

    Of course if you run any event down until people don't care as much about it - e.g. by running it at twice the speed - you can then make an argument for abolishing it. All your posts trashing the Australian Open title seem to be pointing towards that as a desired outcome.
    Well it doesn't really matter what my posts say, because whatever they say you will interpret them to say what you want them to say so that you can attack it. This has been a particularly recurrent theme in these debates.

    If I had an agenda to wreck the title as you suggest I would have been jumping at the chance to vote in favour of a bid to cut it down to five days and would have been one of the first to vote in favour. In fact as already noted I didn't vote on it at all.

    I would have preferred that the Open be eleven rounds rather than nine - not least because that is much better for norm chances - but I'm unconvinced of arguments that the situation means the sky is falling. And I'll be very interested to see how the event actually goes and who plays in it.

    Certainly it would be less work for the ACF, with no Australian Open or Australian Women's Championship to organise any more.
    The Aus Womens is addressed on a separate thread. As concerns the Open, not at all - if the Open was replaced by holding the Championships annually then that would be more work for the ACF, not less. The Championships has field entry criteria that have to be administered and communicated about with the organisers.

  15. #75
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The Aus Womens is addressed on a separate thread. As concerns the Open, not at all - if the Open was replaced by holding the Championships annually then that would be more work for the ACF, not less. The Championships has field entry criteria that have to be administered and communicated about with the organisers.
    Has anyone made an official proposal that the Australian Championship should be every year and the Australian Open dumped? Is there demand for such a move? Talk about strawmanning
    Right now we are dealing with a biennial Championship and a preexisting tournament being renamed as the Australian Open - as I said, much less work for the ACF.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2019 Oceania Zonal Guam 17-24 Feb 2019
    By Leonkempen in forum Oceania Chess
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 25-02-2019, 11:28 PM
  2. 2019 Australian Open 27 December to 31 December Melbourne
    By Peter Tsai in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 23-01-2019, 10:46 AM
  3. AusJCL AGM and new Australian Juniors format
    By Oepty in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30-01-2010, 08:43 PM
  4. The Future of Australian Chess
    By Johanath in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 06:43 AM
  5. Australian Open and Australian Junior 2005
    By ChessGuru in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-06-2004, 09:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •