Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 146
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by four four two
    I think one of the key points people here are missing is that the 2150 cutoff clearly discriminates against people who live in nsw and victoria, if your rating is 2100 your chance of winning a state championship is VERY small. In the case of victoria ,depending on who enters in any given year a player with a 2100 rating might not even qualify for the state championship. Armen Aghamalyan[2094], Domagoj Dragicevic[2106] and David Hacche[2084] would all be worthy players for the Australian championships,they are not pushovers by any stretch of the imagination. I personally think the cut off should be 2050,this would give alot of players whether they live in WA or are juniors a fair go. As for Tasmania, with such a small pool of players you are going to have to come to the mainland and get some scalps ,begonias your best annual option,if you are to have any national credibility.
    Perhaps the ACF needs to reconsider the cut-off level. It used to be 2100 but was raised to 2250 when the bonus 150 points were added to our ratings a few years ago. Oddly, the result was that only 27 players qualified for the next closed Championship on rating so the Council reduced it to 2150.

    To reduce the cut-off to say 2050 raises the question of perhaps making the event too "open" and, in turn, the question whether there ought to be a "closed" Championship at all.

    Certainly, it's embarrassing this year as the organisers of the Closed Championship are getting a number of overseas enquiries from people who want to play in Queenstown and would like to play here en route. I am taking steps to accommodate these special circumstances. They are at present before the Council for consideration.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    Perhaps the ACF needs to reconsider the cut-off level. It used to be 2100 but was raised to 2250 when the bonus 150 points were added to our ratings a few years ago. Oddly, the result was that only 27 players qualified for the next closed Championship on rating so the Council reduced it to 2150.
    why was the rating number reduced? 27 players is an ok number and with the state champions etc would make close to 32 players. That is good.

    Also since the 150 uplift, there has now been the 70 points added too, so surely it should be raised.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 18-09-2005 at 02:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    To reduce the cut-off to say 2050 raises the question of perhaps making the event too "open" and, in turn, the question whether there ought to be a "closed" Championship at all.
    So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?

  4. #4
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    Entry in the Champs

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?
    I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberace
    I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...
    the act champs could be one of the qualifying events

  6. #6
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberace
    I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...
    You could still build in some safeguards so that each state has to have one rep in the Aus Champs.

    What about GM's and IM's over 2300 get in automatically, if a state doesn't have a rep at the end of the exercise, they can enter their state champion. The final places are allocated by a series of qualifying tournaments.

    Seems fairer to me than the current rating cut off. Also has the extra bonus of creating more chess activity. Of course it has the downside of extra tournaments to organise and would people demand prize-money, or would they be happy to play for the honour of getting entry to the Aus Champs? Could keep entry fees to the bare minimum if you are only looking to pay for a few small costs like Dop fees, rating fees and stationery.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    why was the rating number reduced? 27 players is an ok number and with the state champions etc would make close to 32 players. That is good.

    Also since the 150 uplift, there has now been the 70 points added too, so surely it should be raised.
    27 players qualify.. meaning like maybe 8 would show up (not enough - the Aus Masters was a disappointing field, don't do it to the Champs too). If you raised the cutoff you'd also get an even bigger potential discrepancy in strength between state champions.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  8. #8
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,796
    Liberace by the time you win the ACT champs you will be 2050 anyway,which under my preferred cut off point would make you eligible anyway. As regards to ratings,I was talking about CLUB players,as opposed to juniors who mainly play in closed junior tournaments.If someone scores 30% you shouldnt be rated 800,you can only get a really low rating while playing reasonably well by playing in those closed junior tournaments.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?
    What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  10. #10
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

    DJ
    Sounds good to me - gets rid of all the bitterness and hard done by feelings.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

    DJ
    this reply seems to take the option, oh it is difficult, so lets just get rid of it. The Australian Championship has a long history and is supported by all the top players, unlike the australian open. To change that just because a few players might be unhappy with the current regulations would be a mistake.

  12. #12
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    this reply seems to take the option, oh it is difficult, so lets just get rid of it. The Australian Championship has a long history and is supported by all the top players, unlike the australian open. To change that just because a few players might be unhappy with the current regulations would be a mistake.
    I think 2150 is an excellent cut-off point, it shows a player is in form and reached that higher level as different to coasting along at 2050. In the strong chess states there are so many players rated over 2150 that there is ample opportunity for under 2150-rated players to earn their stripes.

    To avoid players rated slightly over 2150 but inactive blocking out lower-rated active players it could be introduced that they have to had to play in at least one high level comp in the past twelve months.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by four four two
    I think one of the key points people here are missing is that the 2150 cutoff clearly discriminates against people who live in nsw and victoria, if your rating is 2100 your chance of winning a state championship is VERY small.
    Hmm, there is only *one* player rated over 2150 in the NSW Championships, and only two over 2100. Looks like an excellent opportunity to me.

  14. #14
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,796
    Antichrist,if you are an active player with our rating system then you cant be "coasting" along,you in fact have to be in good form even to keep your rating above 2000.

  15. #15
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,796
    Pax,if Gary Lane ,JP Wallace,George Xie, and Zhong Zhao had have entered the NSW champs then a 2100 would have realistically no chance of winning,hell even Canfell would have a tough time winning it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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