View Poll Results: Does the grand prix have a future?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - should continue in present format

    3 33.33%
  • Yes - but radical overhaul and restructure needed

    4 44.44%
  • No - scrap the grandprix

    2 22.22%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441

    Australian grand prix

    This is what Paul S posted about the grandprix in the tournaments section.
    ===============================================

    From my perspective, the Grand Prix (GP) was well run by Norm Braybrooke until 13/2/03 which appears to be when he resigned. Since 13/2/03 (or probably just prior to - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF email Bulletins for the exact date), nobody wanted to run the GP for a period of about 6 weeks until David Cordover took it on. Before people start critisizing David too much for the poor state of the GP since 13/2/03, I think we should ALL keep in mind that at least David had a go at doing something that NOBODY else was prepared to take on.

    From what I can see the only 2 times since 13/2/03 that results on the GP have been updated happened to appear about 2 weeks after I made a BB post on this matter (from memory one in June and one in September - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF BB posts for the exact dates of these 2 posts of mine).

    I think it is disgraceful that as of today (24/1/04) the 2003 results have not yet been made public! Also, it appears to me that the ACF considers the GP to be a very low priority - I notice that there is now no longer even a BB link for the GP!!! It seems to me that in 2004 the chess community can expect the same sort of "service" wrt the GP as it had in 2003.

    I think that the NSWCA should not support the Grand Prix any more and as a NSWCA member (and player in some of their tournaments), I object to NSWCA tournament prizemoney being reduced (and/or entry fees being increased) to pay for Grand Prix fees. For example, I object to the impost of Grand Prix fees for the NSWCA's Australia Day Weekender when tournament chess players are not provided with even the basic service of regular score (progress) updates on the GP. What value do chess players currently get from the GP?

    For the NSWCA Australia Day Weekender I would have preferred to see discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed etc instead of this money being wasted on GP fees. That is, instead of $70 adult/$40 Junior (with GP fees) to have $70 adult/$55 pensioner/$40 Junior (with no money wasted on GP fees) with prizemoney ($3300) remaining the same. I reckon the NSWCA would have got a few more entries at the Australia Day Weekender if they had done this.

    How can players have an interest in the GP when the progress scores are not updated regularly? To me it seems that the only beneficiary of the GP at present is David Cordover, who gets a free plug for his business each week in the ACF's weekly email Bulletin.

    If the 2004 GP is going to be run as poorly as the 2003 GP then we should can the 2004 GP right now!

  2. #2
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    This is what the Grand Poobah said in reply

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think if we're going to have a naming rights or advertising type situation with the GP again then there should be specified targets in terms of points updates and processing of events.

  3. #3
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Poll shows more people want grandprix scrapped than for it to stay. WHY on earth would people want the grand prix to be scrapped? :? :?

    Maybe there are problems with the grandprix, in relation to it's format, tournament composition, points scoring, results dessimation etc, but that does not mean the grand prix has to be scrapped - merely "tweaked", or reformatted or restructured.

    Think about what would happen if there is no grand prix? You would have a host of unrelated tournamens all over Australia, run by state chess associations, run by individuals and there would be no way to link them altogether., or have a national chess circuit

    If you look at all sports - individual and team - that is successful, a national league/ tour circuit has been a cornostone of their marketing and promotion.

    League (NRL), Aussie Rules (AFL), Soccer (NSL) and Union (Super 12) all had state wide comps before they all saw the benefit of a national comp.

    Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example

    I think the grand prix for chess is a good idea, and to scrap it will be a bad regressive and detrimental move for australian chess, and our dream to make chess a sport and make it attractive for sponsors

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,342
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example
    Actually while Bathurst is technically double points the points are split between the two drivers, so winning Bathurst is worth the same to the driver in points as a clean sweep in any other round.

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,342
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Poll shows more people want grandprix scrapped than for it to stay.
    At the time you said that at most three people had voted.

    All the poll really showed at that stage was that two people who had been among the first to vote wanted the GP scrapped. It is not a meaningful result at that stage.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    When I used to play regularly, I never really thought about the GP. I don't even know how it works but I imagine score more points in tourn, then score more points in GP, right? Basically, I don't give a flippin' stuff about it. Having said that, it should still be retained and tweaked. From a purely marketing perspective, some sort of a GP system is attractive to potential sponsors I think. You can say to them, "Look we have this series of tourneys that can attract lotsa players and some occassional stars like GMs - so you get a lot of exposure, etc, etc. We'll put your logo on scoresheets, websites, flyers and so on".

    Btw, what ever happened to that Super GP/Grand Slam idea?

    AR

  7. #7
    CC Candidate Master Bob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    who makes up these surveys ?
    the use of the word "radical" seems a little emotive in one of the survey choices.

    I personally think it would be foolish to abandon the GP completely without exploring other options to enhance it further. (not sure that such changes need to be radical though)

    If it is to be a national event it needs to be relevant to the smaller states.
    It is highly unlikely that a player from Tasmania, WA, SA or NT will win a prize due to the cost of travel to the events - however it may be a mechanism where these states can attract visiting players to their events.

    I would like to work out what the goals & objectives are for the series as it stands today and explore the future.

    Anyone got any ideas?

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    who makes up these surveys ?
    the use of the word "radical" seems a little emotive in one of the survey choices.
    Anyone who starts a topic on the BB can attach a Poll to the thread.

    So in this case the choice of words is its CL's fault.

    It is my understanding that the current GP model is based on Jason's revamp of a few years back.

  9. #9
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example
    Actually while Bathurst is technically double points the points are split between the two drivers, so winning Bathurst is worth the same to the driver in points as a clean sweep in any other round.
    are you sure? I am happy to be wrong, but I was under the impression that both the drivers got the double points - not split it

    My favourite winter sports are Rugby League, but I am also interested in Sydney Swans, F1 and Bathurst 1000 - but do not "follow" the V8 circuit to the same extent as F1 circuit

    I guess the point is that if we needed to chess too can have a couple of the more important tournaments, like the Doberl, have higher grand prix points - just like bathurst 1000

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    When I used to play regularly, I never really thought about the GP.

    Basically, I don't give a flippin' stuff about it. Having said that, it should still be retained and tweaked. From a purely marketing perspective, some sort of a GP system is attractive to potential sponsors I think. You can say to them, "Look we have this series of tourneys that can attract lotsa players and some occassional stars like GMs - so you get a lot of exposure, etc, etc. We'll put your logo on scoresheets, websites, flyers and so on".

    Btw, what ever happened to that Super GP/Grand Slam idea?

    AR
    I agree with you AR

    I think that in principle the grand prix is a good idea, and all credit to jason for his initiative on it.

    In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year. This will also increase the level of players playing in the weekenders

    I note that people have stated that the granmd prix is eastern australia centric....but so what? Most of Australia lives in the Eastern Australia, and NSW with about 7 million people is the most populas, richest and most powerful state in Australia. The fact that many grand prix tourneys are in East Australia, and NSW, is reflective of the ground realities of teh importance of these states...

    I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have. Currently our NSW Australia Day chessweekender, has the same level of grand prix staus and points as these long established and important tournaments. By having a Cat 4 definition for these 4 tournaments, and the increase in points available in the grand prix we will increase the number of top players, and "normal" players who compete

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
    It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
    You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

    Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

    Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have. Currently our NSW Australia Day chessweekender, has the same level of grand prix staus and points as these long established and important tournaments. By having a Cat 4 definition for these 4 tournaments, and the increase in points available in the grand prix we will increase the number of top players, and "normal" players who compete
    Perhaps before making this suggestion you should check out some history.
    The GP used to have tournament Cats 1-5.
    When Jason revamped the GP the cats 1-5 were reduced to cats 1-3 with a differnt point scale.

    I'm sure Jason can provide more details.

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,342
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    are you sure? I am happy to be wrong, but I was under the impression that both the drivers got the double points - not split it
    That may have been the case in 2002 (not sure), but in 2003 Bathurst was effectively single points with 192 each for the winners (same result as winning every race at any other round) - checked this on the V8 supercars website.

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
    It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
    You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

    Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

    Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.
    May I respectfully point out that you are wrong

    In tennis, F1 and V8, there are tournaments with points allocated to those who place in the tournaments ie in F1, 10 points for first, 8 for second, 6 for 3rd, 5 for 4th, etc. There are 17 tournaments on the F 1 circuit, and the person who has won the most points is crowned teh world champ for that year. The fact that most F1 races are in Europe, just 3 in the americas, 2 in Asia is not a factor - analogous to people stating that most of the grand prix events are in Eastern Australia.

    This is the same for the V8 championships - there are 13 races and points are awarded on where the drivers finished, with the driver with the most points, Amrose, being crowned the champ.

    In tennis and golf, the grand prix circuit, form the basis for the rating points of the tennis players and golf players, which in turn determine there world ranking

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
    It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
    You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

    Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

    Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.
    May I respectfully point out that you are wrong

    In tennis, F1 and V8, there are tournaments with points allocated to those who place in the tournaments ie in F1, 10 points for first, 8 for second, 6 for 3rd, 5 for 4th, etc. There are 17 tournaments on the F 1 circuit, and the person who has won the most points is crowned teh world champ for that year. The fact that most F1 races are in Europe, just 3 in the americas, 2 in Asia is not a factor - analogous to people stating that most of the grand prix events are in Eastern Australia.
    I wasnt even talking about location. That was you.

    Yes I'm aware how F1 races have points allocated.

    You however was implyng that the player who scored the most points in a chess GP should be considered number one.
    In F1 that is not the case. They are simply considered the F1 world champion. The best driver(number 1) is not necessarily the champ.

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    In tennis and golf, the grand prix circuit, form the basis for the rating points of the tennis players and golf players, which in turn determine there world ranking
    Thats true however the point I was trying to make is that rankings based on GP points is not necessarily a true representation of merit.
    Tiger 5oods can win a event by 5 strokes from any other competitor however in another GP event where Woods does not compete the winner of that may win it by 1 stroke from all other players. The two events however may be equal in GP points allocated.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    In F1 that is not the case. They are simply considered the F1 world champion. The best driver(number 1) is not necessarily the champ.
    also in this case the best driver may not be in the best car and so would not be world champion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. paid CEO for Australian chess
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21-02-2006, 06:53 PM
  2. Preliminary Qualifier for Australian Masters
    By firegoat7 in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 23-05-2004, 11:52 PM
  3. Australian Clubs Team Champions
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 26-02-2004, 06:59 AM
  4. Australian chess wheel reinvented again!
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 20-02-2004, 04:01 PM
  5. Australian National Events Reports
    By adelaideuni in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-02-2004, 03:01 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
  •