Victorian JUNIOR Open 2005

[ursogr8]

For 2005, the U18, U16, and U14 Vic JUNIOR Open is scheduled over the two week-ends
April 23, 24;
and
April 30, May 1

Full details can be accessed through this link .

The Under 12, Under 10, Under 8, Boys and Girls are scheduled later in May >

8 rounds. One weekend: May 14, 15.

starter

[ursogr8]

From the minutes of the organising comittee >

It would be useful on the bulletin board to provide an announcement along the lines that after *years of playoff schemozzles* the organisers have persuaded CV to accept titles decided on countback. This might stir up a bit of controversy.

starter

[Mischa]

You know why I am happy with this!

[ursogr8]

^
Err
No, noidea...I don't.
But I think you are going to tell me?

(I was not at last year's VIC Junior)

starter

[Mischa]

James lost the play off, but would have won in a count back.

[arosar]

Some people reckon that titles should be decided by play and not by mathematics.

AR

[Mischa]

But the play off's are a totally different type of chess to the one being played in the actual tournament.

[arosar]

But it's still chess, no?

AR

[Mischa]

But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

[jenni]

But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

This is one of these arguements that are unwinnable. Anyone who has looked at countbacks knows that in most cases you may as well toss the names in a hat and pull one out.

On the other hand it always seems to be a shame to decide sometimes 2 weeks of long game play, by a 15 or 5 minute game. eg. Vincent Suttor who had sat on board 1 for almost the whole tournament in Mt Buller. A shock last round loss put him tied for 1st and he was never going to win a playoff against Moulthun the king of fast chess.

I guess I lean marginally towards fast time playoffs as a pragmatic solution. At least then you can say the winner is good at multiple chess genres.

[arosar]

But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

At the end of the day, it's still chess. You just think and move more quickly. That's all.

And besides, play-offs are ahelluvalot more exciting. Countbank decisions, on the other hand, are complete fizzers. I've always felt that there's something improper about merely looking at a few numbers and declaring some bastard the champ. Do the business over the board. We live and die OTB. That's it!

AR

[Mischa]

I argue not only from the piont of view of James' last Vic. Junior, but also from this year's Aus. Junior. If James had not run out of time and had beaten his opponent, there would have been a play off that James would have possibly won. If a count back, James would have come second.

[Mischa]

What is the problem with having equal firsts?

[Recherché]

Personally I favour long-format playoffs (two game match at original time control). Obviously this isn't suitable for all tournaments, but I believe it's worth allowing for it for really important events, especially national titles.

[Mischa]

In last year's Vic. Junior. James had to play off against an opponent who had had about an hour's rest. James came from a loss, was given 5 minutes, late at night, no drink break or food break or even toilet break just straight to the playoff. He had had a very long and difficult game. His play off opponent didn't and had time to prepare.