Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70
  1. #1
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809

    New years wish list 2-Is the oz champs an old dog?

    Hello everyone,

    This is one of my favorite hobby horses, but i thought I would bring it up again. The Australian Championship is a tired old dog that needs to be revitalised.

    To begin, its format is outdated and not dynamic enough. I have labored this point on previous posts, so I will not go into any major details here.

    I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

    Will the ACF ever do something about this archaic institution?

    Cheers FG7

  2. #2
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hello everyone,

    This is one of my favorite hobby horses, but i thought I would bring it up again. The Australian Championship is a tired old dog that needs to be revitalised.

    To begin, its format is outdated and not dynamic enough. I have labored this point on previous posts, so I will not go into any major details here.

    I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

    Will the ACF ever do something about this archaic institution?

    Cheers FG7
    I haven't seen your earlier posts, so I'll just try to play it straight...

    The format as it is seems to serve its purpose: anyone with even the faintest chance of winning gets in, as do a fair smattering of players with no realistic chance of winning but who nevertheless help to make it a reasonably strong competition. And the field is small enough to not contain patzers, and for most of the contenders to play each other.

    Your complaint, I assume, is that if you're not a junior and you're in a state where you have little chance of winning its championship, then you have to get in on ratings. But since it is usually only juniors who are improving and underrated, I don't see a problem.

    As for the performances of adult Victorian players at the Aus Open: what's the rating cutoff for entry to an Aus Championship these days... about 2100? I wasn't at Mt. Buller, but looking at the results, I can't see anyone rated over 2100 (or even 2000) who disgraced themselves.

    --
    Peter

  3. #3
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    what's the rating cutoff for entry to an Aus Championship these days... about 2100?
    It is currently 2150.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 13-01-2005 at 05:37 PM. Reason: Typing error

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    It is currently 2250.
    Has that changed? I guessed 2100 after looking at the entry list of the 2003-4 championships at www.unichess.org.

    Anyway, it seems I misinterpreted FG's complaint. I think FG is saying that a number of 2000-ish adults did well in the Aus Open but have no realistic chance of playing in the next Aus Championship. Is that correct?

  5. #5
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Has that changed?
    Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.

    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    I guessed 2100 after looking at the entry list of the 2003-4 championships at www.unichess.org.
    Where is that list on the unichess website.
    Barber and Wright got in as State Champions.
    Rej was the current Aus Junior champ and Szuveges the previous womens champ.
    The others applied under either 2b, 3g (improving junior) or 3h (overseas player) of By-law 1 and were accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Anyway, it seems I misinterpreted FG's complaint. I think FG is saying that a number of 2000-ish adults did well in the Aus Open but have no realistic chance of playing in the next Aus Championship. Is that correct?
    They can always apply under section 2 b of By-law 1 b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.

  6. #6
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    648
    While I agree with David B. on this I'm not sure my proposed solution will please him much.
    I would like to see the Aus champs use (in part) the BCF approach allowing players to qualify from other tournaments. Apart from all the existing qualifiers (previous reserves winner, junior champ(s), womens champ, previous champion, anyone over 2100) other players could qualify via state tournaments.
    Each state is allowed to qualify 3 players via: (A) State Championship (1 player, must be winner); (B) winner of specified tournament (can be from any state, must be weekend event); (C) best placed local player in a specified event (must be resident of the hosting state, should be weekender). If the eligible player does not enter the championship the place cannot be transferred. If a player already qualifies, their place cannot be transferred.
    For example the ACT would have a State Championship and nominate the Doeberl Cup as their (B) qualifier and the ANU Open as their (C) qualifier.
    Of course this favours the weaker states over the stronger ones but it may encourage players to ambush the Tas open (for example) to qualify for the Aus champs.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.


    Where is that list on the unichess website.
    Barber and Wright got in as State Champions.
    Rej was the current Aus Junior champ and Szuveges the previous womens champ.
    The others applied under either 2b, 3g (improving junior) or 3h (overseas player) of By-law 1 and were accepted.


    They can always apply under section 2 b of By-law 1 b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.
    I think Thaw got in to make even numbers as he was going to be top seed in the reserves. Wright was the previous reserves champion, not a state champion.
    Scott

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    I think Thaw got in to make even numbers as he was going to be top seed in the reserves. Wright was the previous reserves champion, not a state champion.
    You are correct, Wright was the winner of the previous Reserves. It was Jovanovic who was the ACT Champion.
    Also as you noted Thaw was allowed in to remove the bye.

  9. #9
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    fg has half a point - only half, as he seems to be more concerned about how many Victorians get into the Australian Championship than what sensible criteria or applications of crieria should be. If some analysis was presented showing the performances of players admitted under various criteria the case would be more credible. For instance if players admitted on rating tended to finish towards the top there would be a case for lowering the floor, or at least applying it less strictly.

    I think it's part of a broader issue of what facilities exist for "elite" chess. How often do the top and the rising players meet each other, or top players from other countries? Maybe Accor or other sponsors might be interested in sponsoring a QVB-type event (for those who remember it) with an IM/GM group, along with an Open to fill rooms.

    Developing top players, e.g. Greg Norman in golf, or Anand in India for a chess example, tends to trickle down and promote interest so I think this sort of area, unlike fg's other one, is something to look at.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    For example the ACT would have a State Championship and nominate the Doeberl Cup as their (B) qualifier and the ANU Open as their (C) qualifier.
    Surely there is a flaw here. Why would ACT waste a drawcard like this, when the Doeberl winner is certain to be an already qualified player? Wouldn't ACT nominate Vikings as its Group B event?

  10. #10
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.
    2250 did sound a bit too stringent to me. 2150 sounds reasonable.

    Where is that list on the unichess website.
    Sorry, I found it via google and just assumed it was easy to find from www.unichess.org. They need a site map. Anyway, the url for the last championships is http://www.unichess.org/championships.htm from which you can find entry list, results etc.

    --
    Peter

  11. #11
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809

    maybe I should clarify my position

    Hello,

    Look I basically agree with Shaun's and Ian's positions. All I am really saying is that the champ format needs to be changed to be more dynamic!!

    I like the basics of Shauns model, but i would go further. 1/ I would seed the top 16 from previous championships. 2/ I would not give automatic entry based on rating without an activity clause (ie 50 games in two years etc). 3/ I like Shauns ideas of qualifiers, state champs etc, anu open, grand prix events etc, but I would not allow them direct entry into the champs, instead I think Ians ideas of a high quality elite qualifying tournament makes sense- (see the point is to do well when you get there, not to be satisfied for just getting there.)- In other words you qualify for say a shot at 16 spots out of 32.

    I view the problem of the Australian Championship as a rotation concern. And Ian, I am not really concerned about the Victorian perspective per se. I use Victorian players as a basis of my arguements only because I am familiar with these players. I suspect that QLD has very similar problems. Darryl Johansen has been Victorian state champ 10 times, Does anybody know the score for Stephen Solomon?

    What annoys me the most about the current format is that you see players like Dragiceviic and Pecori busting their balls and playing in heaps of chess tournaments, thus making Australian chess stronger. These type of players are strong players, they just lack the consistency of the top flighters. You can see from their games(didn't Dragicevic beat Rogers at doeberl and finish third in the Vic champs) that they are capable of mixing it. But come championship time they are told "you are not strong enough, go play in the seconds fellas". Which of course puts them behind the pack again because the top flighters have just played in another closed elite tournament and gained even more valuable experience.

    Instead, the ACF lets in some promising juniors (who by the way have access to world selection events) or even worse some old war horse, who only trots out for the champs every two years, cause like "hey I used to be keen and strong, but now its just a hobby". I think everybody here knows which sort of player is better for Australian chess, its the dynamic active ones the sort of players who make events like Mt Buller a success.

    So this is why I think Shaun, Ian and I are probably in agreement about the championship, people can see that their are some serious flaws in the current formula. All we really need to do is nut out the details of how an alternative would work in practice.

    Any comments?

    cheers FG7

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    I like the basics of Shauns model, but i would go further. 1/ I would seed the top 16 from previous championships. 2/ I would not give automatic entry based on rating without an activity clause (ie 50 games in two years etc). 3/ I like Shauns ideas of qualifiers, state champs etc, anu open, grand prix events etc, but I would not allow them direct entry into the champs, instead I think Ians ideas of a high quality elite qualifying tournament makes sense- (see the point is to do well when you get there, not to be satisfied for just getting there.)- In other words you qualify for say a shot at 16 spots out of 32.
    If you have an extra qualifying tournament, you will simply make it near impossible for many players to play. Most Australian players have to take two weeks off work to play the championships as it is. Asking players to play a further extended tournament to qualify is crazy. Furthermore the logistical difficulties for player e.g from WA would be doubled.

    The state championships are elite events. What is the problem with an automatic qualification? It is perfectly natural for the state champions to have the opportunity to vie for the national title.

    Perhaps you have a problem with a player from (for example) the Tasmanian Championships qualifying directly at the expense of a possibly stronger player from NSW or Vic? In my opinion, this is a good thing, as it ensures that players from all parts of the country have the opportunity to compete.

    It is no different in principle to having automatic qualifiers for the FIDE WC from the Oceania Zonal. Those players help make it a truly worldwide event. It's not simply about it being as strong as possible.

    Pax

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    As I said previously I think fg has a point or part of one, and it's certainly reasonable to look at whether there are black spots in the qualification process. In the past we have heard that practically the entire population of Victoria is better than, e.g. the ACT Champion, which can't be taken too seriously. If however the argument is more focussed and sensible than it should be looked at.

    One issue is whether the Championship in it's current form serves a point at all - does it fall between two stools by not being completely accessible but also not completely elite? Swiss tournaments are inherently dodgy because players play different fields. This being the case there is an argument to accept that it's not entirely about absolute truth and look to a variant of Shaun's model of qualifiers. Or maybe the Aust Champion should be just the highest scorer in the Australian Open, which could be held annually, with Masters-type tournaments as the elite events.

    Incidentally I note that D. Dragicevic, mentioned as a deserving player who could be excluded, has a rating of 2122 on the latest list so should hit the magic 2150. That's the difference between the big cities and the provinces, even if a player in Canberra was of generally 2150 strength they would, unless they went into hibernation, be playing fields where one blunder would set their rating back six months but with no opportunity for quick gains - you have more chance of playing a werewolf than an IM in a Canberra chess club.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Perhaps you have a problem with a player from (for example) the Tasmanian Championships qualifying directly at the expense of a possibly stronger player from NSW or Vic? In my opinion, this is a good thing, as it ensures that players from all parts of the country have the opportunity to compete.
    Yeah, but his aim is to have the best qualified players based on performance. He's not necessarily concerned with country-wide representation. I agree with fg7's idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    It's not simply about it being as strong as possible.
    But it should be.

    AR

  15. #15
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Yeah, but his aim is to have the best qualified players based on performance.
    On that basis you could just have a strict rating cut-off with no exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    But it should be.
    Actually would not the main aim be to ensure that all legitimate contenders for the title can compete.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Next ratings list
    By Megaman in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 28-02-2005, 11:11 PM
  2. Jan 2005 Fide Rating List
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2005, 07:03 AM
  3. Active Rating List inclusions/exclusions
    By The_Wise_Man in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-12-2004, 03:43 PM
  4. Tparker at the NSW Champs (U1600 division)
    By Trent Parker in forum Games and Analysis
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-10-2004, 12:27 PM
  5. The List
    By jeffrei in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21-07-2004, 05:24 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
  •