Australian Junior structure

[Bill Gletsos]

I have noidea so please explain how reducing the number of rounds will help?

It wouldnt.
In fact the additional rounds may well help in determining the U16 Champion etc.

[Garvinator]

I have noidea so please explain how reducing the number of rounds will help?

just reducing the rounds doesnt help at all. it must be combined with what is called acceleration. In very simple terms, basically it is assumed that the higher rated players would have won their first round games using a normal swiss draw. So effectively the first round is skipped and the tournament begins from what would normally be round two.

Any player can still win the tournament from any seeding.

[Libby]

When George proposed finishing the event on 23/1, the U12s were attending the tournament for the same number of days as the U18, playing 9 rounds, and having 4 rest days!

Another way perhaps to maximise everyone's stay? At least under the DC proposal I saw, they started slightly later so could arrive later & still finish at the same time as the U18.

Slightly ancient history all of that. I think 9 rounds is good for the U12 - every kid at the event is exhausted by the end. At least they skip the doubled rounds which are more prone than most to hurt with upsets.

However - for the girls (U18 or U12), I'd like to see some guidelines on the ratio of rounds to participants. I've seen some ridiculous final 2 or 3 rounds generated by small entries in the Girls U12. In Adelaide, 11 rounds were played (I think) with 15 participants. Not only are the final round pairings ridiculous but there is the opportunity for a highly distorted result when a tiny proportion of players miss out on a bye and your result can be unduly influenced by the particular combination of players you didn't play. It just amplifies every shortcoming in the swiss draw.

It would be nice to have some guidelines across all ACF tournaments to say entries = "x" therefore maximum number of rounds = 7 or 9 or 11. The girls in particular, often appear to fall into a grey area between enough for a decent swiss and too many for a round robin.

Other solution is for all states to promote chess better for girls

Other concern. Why are there no standard prizes at these events? Why is there nothing that says trophies (nicer for kids than large sums of money) are awarded for ......... across the main tournaments, rapid and lightning (if held). They don't have to be enormous or expensive but some kids arrive and play well and expect something based on what has happened before but one year there is a trophy, the next there is not, and the next there is again. Leaves the kid in the middle a bit disappointed. Surely we could determine a certain number of prizes are "standard" and have some consistency from event to event.

And don't give prizemoney without some token (trophy). The money is gone in a flash. Some kids mights get too old & superior for trophies but most kids want a memento of their achievement.

And I'll join Rowena on the shirts. Note the ACT kids like to wear a special ACT t-shirt (esp our U12s). The Mercure & Hospitality Textiles could even have had their logos walking around for years into the future. Better than the booklets which everyone has tossed out. Don't order too many "big" sizes but the little kids love them.

And the U18s Round 1? I think there was an unusually long tail in the Open divisions this year. I don't know top & bottom are always such a defined split.

[Ian Rout]

Have a look at round one of this years australian juniors, the average rating differential per game was 700 points. How is that useful in finding who is the best australian junior?

Excluding the Swedish juniors who we werent certain of their correct rating, there wasnt one upset result in the first round. All the higher seeded players won.

I don't see that it's a problem that better players win more games. I find it quite comforting.

Accelerated draws were discussed extensively on starter's thread and I haven't changed my mind about it. Accelerated draws are a form of handicap - the bottom players get softer games among each other rather than the pairings dictated by normal Swiss rules - and aren't appropriate to major and title events. They are fine for club, training or other lesser events where getting good games is more important than the outcome.

[ursogr8]

I don't see that it's a problem that better players win more games. I find it quite comforting.

Accelerated draws were discussed extensively on starter's thread and I haven't changed my mind about it. Accelerated draws are a form of handicap - the bottom players get softer games among each other rather than the pairings dictated by normal Swiss rules - and aren't appropriate to major and title events. They are fine for club, training or other lesser events where getting good games is more important than the outcome.

Ian is quite right that acceleration of the field, as it stands, is not a solution to the problem of a first round that was a waste of time and money.

However, discarding one solution does not mean that the problem has gone away. It just means that the idea (acceleration) is not a solution (this time).

There are other ideas that could be debated, that may have ameliorated the problem. For example, all players rated under 1600 who were under the age of 12 could have been required to play in the U12's. Does anyone have the numbers to see if this was but a handful?

starter

[pax]

just reducing the rounds doesnt help at all. it must be combined with what is called acceleration. In very simple terms, basically it is assumed that the higher rated players would have won their first round games using a normal swiss draw. So effectively the first round is skipped and the tournament begins from what would normally be round two.

Except it isn't at all like starting at round 2. You still get the junk rounds when the acceleration ends.

Any player can still win the tournament from any seeding.

Can you imagine the grumbling from the top players (and half of the Aus chess community) if a player from the bottom half of an accelerated draw won the Australian Junior? It would be mutiny!

[Libby]

Ian is quite right that acceleration of the field, as it stands, is not a solution to the problem of a first round that was a waste of time and money.

However, discarding one solution does not mean that the problem has gone away. It just means that the idea (acceleration) is not a solution (this time).

There are other ideas that could be debated, that may have ameliorated the problem. For example, all players rated under 1600 who were under the age of 12 could have been required to play in the U12's. Does anyone have the numbers to see if this was but a handful?

starter

I don't know every child in the event but we had none from the ACT playing in the U18 (except my daughter in the U18 girls) who were eligible to play the U12. We contributed several players u1600 (several a long way under 1600) but they were all U18.

I suspect you would count on one hand any under 12s in the U18.

Perhaps with very high numbers of "average joe" players coming along to the Juniors, either as siblings, or just because they enjoy it or because the various private organisations are offering something akin to an all-inclusive holiday camp that suits working parents, you could look at introducing a "minor" event to play alongside the main championship? If the event ran for the same length of time, under the same time controls and at the same venue it may not suffer the same "second-class" perceptions that discourage children from "stepping down" to these events as run before. I think we would have had a few players enter that sort of division had it run. It's also a good option for any child who may not have entered the Aus Junior as an U12, is scared off by the U18, but might attempt something in the middle as an intermediate "toe in the water."

I would be cautious about prescribing a rating cutoff for entry to the main event (ie forcing all U1600s out etc) because of the great variation in the actual ability of children which will not always match their actual rating

[Libby]

Except it isn't at all like starting at round 2. You still get the junk rounds when the acceleration ends.

We attempted it in the ACT too, in response to our best kids opting out of junior events on the premise they are "too weak" and "too many junk games."

We didn't find the accleration eliminated junk rounds, just rearranged them, and possibly led to distortions in some sections of the draw.

All-in-all, didn't make any difference. We are going to trial a slightly different format this year. Having our own U1000 division alongside the main event and considering excluding players U800 from the main event (still allows those between 800 and 1000 a choice, bottom of one or top of another).

This will be trialled at one of our junior weekenders (not our junior championship) to see if it encourages entries both from the top end (fewer serious mismatches throughout all rounds) and the bottom end (incentive to compete for their own prizes).

[pax]

All-in-all, didn't make any difference. We are going to trial a slightly different format this year. Having our own U1000 division alongside the main event and considering excluding players U800 from the main event (still allows those between 800 and 1000 a choice, bottom of one or top of another).

I would strongly discourage the barring of any junior on the basis of rating. I think all junior title events (up to the national level) should be essentially "open".

[Libby]

I would strongly discourage the barring of any junior on the basis of rating. I think all junior title events (up to the national level) should be essentially "open".

Like I said, not for our Championship - just for one of our weekenders.

The U1000 event is planned, the exclusion of U800 (from the main event) is still being discussed.

At a local level, there is a tendency for the ratings to be more accurate as we are playing within our own pool. An 800 player in Canberra is generally weaker than a 1000 point player in Canberra. However setting that "bar" at 800 would be a flexible thing because we can look at our player list and make a reasonable assessment of where the cutoff lies. We know what to expect of particular players overall.

Nothing is perfect as nothing takes into account a period of rapid improvement. But I'd suggest that most rapid improvement - of the sort that really reflects a new standard of play and can challenge a 1500-1600 strength player - doesn't start until a player is at least 700-800 and really comes into play as they approach 1000. Talking juniors anyway.

[jenni]

Junior leagues? i don't remember anyone asking me or other parents of under 12's what they wanted? Guru or anybody.

You don't have a junior league in Victoria.....or at least you did have a very good one, but it was killed.

[jenni]

Other concern. Why are there no standard prizes at these events? Why is there nothing that says trophies (nicer for kids than large sums of money) are awarded for ......... across the main tournaments, rapid and lightning (if held). They don't have to be enormous or expensive but some kids arrive and play well and expect something based on what has happened before but one year there is a trophy, the next there is not, and the next there is again. Leaves the kid in the middle a bit disappointed. Surely we could determine a certain number of prizes are "standard" and have some consistency from event to event.

And don't give prizemoney without some token (trophy). The money is gone in a flash. Some kids mights get too old & superior for trophies but most kids want a memento of their achievement.

This is something I started working on with Denis last year, which never got finished due to a lack of time. However it is definitely going to be finished in 2005 and we will have a junior sub-committee to work with as well. We need to have a set of minimum conditions for the Aus Juniors and associated tournaments and also details on mimimum trophies etc. While state bodies can increase the number of trophies, they shouldn't be allowed to decide not to have any or to do away with titles and have rating group prizes and other such idiotic decisions.

[jenni]

We attempted it in the ACT too, in response to our best kids opting out of junior events on the premise they are "too weak" and "too many junk games."

Yes - I ran the ACT Juniors with 2 accelerated rounds, in order to try and keep our older juniors happy. It was the first time I had used an accelerated draw and I monitored the draws fairly carefully to see if it achieved the desired result. However it seemed to me that all it did was to move when the junk rounds happened.

[Mischa]

I think this is an excellent idea...the conditions for the juniors..esp. the under 12's need not only to be set, but carefully monitored as well. It would be a shame to discourage juniors from competing because they are basically ignored.

Prize money up to 5th place for under 18's and no third place for under 12's or under 10's.

[Bill Gletsos]

they shouldn't be allowed to decide not to have any or to do away with titles and have rating group prizes and other such idiotic decisions.

One would have thought the ACF president (and main organiser) would have ensured that the age titles (U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18) for the Junior Lightning and Junior Rapid would have been awarded.
After all he was on the ACF Council when it was decided to add them to the list of official ACF titles.