This has been moved here.
Its not personal stupid. Its about the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the selction process.Originally Posted by Pax
This has been moved here.
Its not personal stupid. Its about the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the selction process.Originally Posted by Pax
Canberra has quite a few events that attract interstate players, does Doeberl sound familiar, how about ANU Open as well?Originally Posted by firegoat7
Tasmania has a few events during the year that anyone could play in. I believe the Tasmanian Championship is one big swiss too. Therefore you could play in that tournament if you wished David. Should Kevin be reading this as you are coming to the tassie champs this year?
Two years is a long time between drinks. Alot of things can change in that time. I do believe that all players have to demonstrate that they can play to their rating, be it fide or acf, in between the championships. Your idea doesnt include this at this time.I also believe that instead of relying on rating as a cut off, in regards to the australian championship, you should just select the top 16 from last years events and get the others to qualify through tournament play.
a littleP.S Does that help to clarify things?
But GG, for elite chess players to travel there has to be motivation (not that I am an elite player)Originally Posted by ggrayggray
So for instance wanting to beat Bonbot is not enough motivation. Playing for a spot in the championship just might be. Having said that don't you think that it would be even better if players like Xie and Smerdon were encouraged to play in Tasmania because there were GM norms up for grabs, just like the championship.
To create these tournaments Tasmania chess needs to give up something old for something new. Forget about your individual qualifyer, aim for a collective structure based on participation!
Me neither. Looking up all the words longer than five letters would have taken you much longer than that.Originally Posted by firegoat7
Hahahaha. The last person to try it against me (albeit much weaker than you) said that in future he would still be comfortable playing it against anyone else. Of course, on my worst days I could lose to a player of roughly equal standard playing the Irish Gambit, the Fred or f3/Kf2, but you would be wrong if you expected me to be unprepared for the heffalump or to take it lightly.Me too. I want to play in a qualifying tournament in Tasmania just to beat Bonham with the Elephant gambit.
I remind you at this point of my standing offer to stake $100 on you not winning the tournament for the Tasmanian Championship, should you compete in it.
Reinventing the wheel again! TCA restricted numbers from 1970 to 1980 and again in 1982 and 1983 but no longer does so. Furthermore your claim is wrong - the Tasmanian Championship tournament is open to interstate and overseas entrants, who are eligible for the prizemoney but not the title. Indeed it is part of the Grand Prix to make it well known that it is open entry-wise. When it was held as round robins there were issues with qualification criteria.What I was alluding to is if Tasmanian or Canberra chess want to get better they have to start attracting interstate players i.e not limit their fields to just state players.They also ought to restict numbers.
ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices
My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham
Away Jan 27- Feb 6 2015.
Yes, and if the s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e of the (proposed) selection process denies entry to players who are tremendously talented, improving at a very rapid rate, and capable of performing very well in the Championship, then there is something wrong with that process.Originally Posted by firegoat7
I am prepared to read this statement as a middle ground.Originally Posted by pax
At the moment would it be correct to suggest that we both believe that people should be allowed entry to the championship?
If this is the case, and I am presuming it is, how are we so diametrically oppossed in our argument, if we both believe that talented players ought to be given opportunities. As far as I can see, our only difference is, that you believe that "talented juniors" ought to be selected, while I believe that 'talented juniors' ought to play qualifying tournaments with talented adults.
Maybe there is some middle ground in our positions, maybe they are not as mutually exclusive as might be first thought.
Wow, an olive branch from fg7 - I am truly honoured!Originally Posted by firegoat7
That's a good start, yes I believe we can agree on that ; )At the moment would it be correct to suggest that we both believe that people should be allowed entry to the championship?
I don't think I have ever said that talented and improving Juniors should be selected at the expense of similarly talented and improving adults. My position is this: if you can codify the definition of 'talented and improving', then you could remove the requirement for selectors in the process, which would be a good thing (because it removes all possibility of bias). You could also apply such criteria equally to adults and juniors (juniors are more likely to qualify this way in my view, but it certainly isn't impossible for adults to qualify this way).If this is the case, and I am presuming it is, how are we so diametrically oppossed in our argument, if we both believe that talented players ought to be given opportunities. As far as I can see, our only difference is, that you believe that "talented juniors" ought to be selected, while I believe that 'talented juniors' ought to play qualifying tournaments with talented adults.
Qualifying tournaments is another possibility, but it is fraught with difficulties. You need to be sure that all tournaments meet a minimum standard, as otherwise you can get many qualifiers well below the required standard. You also need to ensure a geographical spread of such tournaments, as otherwise you are making it much easier for players from one area to qualify over another. It would also require a whole new layer of organisation to make it work, and it is unclear to me whether would be enough organisational will to make it work. If you could resolve such difficulties, then yes, I agree qualifying tournaments could work.
Indeed perhaps not. Is this a truce then, on this particular matter? No doubt there are some points of difference on the above, but I am willing to let it rest for now.Maybe there is some middle ground in our positions, maybe they are not as mutually exclusive as might be first thought.
I think this would be a big step in the right direction compared to what we currently have at present.Originally Posted by pax
At the moment, as things currently stand, adults cannot qualify under this system. This is why a lot of adults have been arguing against the junior bias, suggesting that it is discriminatory- even if it is an indirect discrimination. I also agree with your suggestion that it should be applied equally for juniors and adults.Originally Posted by Pax
Again I agree with everything you have said. I would also like to add these points. At some stage in the future,for Australian chess to move ahead, the states have to cede their controlling interest in the ACF, so that the ACF can be run as an autonomous unit with support form the states. Not, as a governing body controlledby state chess administration.Originally Posted by Pax
A useful analogy would be Soccer Australia, I think that chess in Australia is suffering from very similar problems that beset soccer before Lowe.
Anyway, for tournament qualification to succeed, ultimately the ACF and the states have to realise that they need to co-operate for the future success of the game at the elite level. In my opinion, for this to work, the ACF needs to develop revenue streams to support a tournament structure at the highest level. To do this it needs to develop a product that it can market and sell to a world wide audience. I believe it has the basis for this product, but it lacks the organising capacity to see it through, which I think is mostly due to its historically archaic structure.
Here is what I would suggest needs to happen.
Every state championship needs to be structured, in tournament format, similar to the Victorian idea of a state championship, i.e closed round robins and then recognised as an elite event on the ACF calender.
I would change any rules regarding foreign, interstate and automatic qualification based on geography of the participant, whilst ensuring that a promotion/relegation system worked for all players, i.e 2 or 3 from previous qualifyers.
I suggest that all state championships at the top ought to be closed masters events, with ACF invited participants and that they ought to go for 2 weeks straight, similar to the Australian Masters. I think you can afford to be more flexible for the other qualifying tournaments. I also believe that they ought to be structured around school holidays to accomodate most players.
What the ACF would have then is at least 7 Master events in Australia of the highest possible standard. At the moment, taking an estimated guess, the costing for this would be about $35,000. But more importantly they would achieve three things.
1) Tournament chess numbers ought to increase, because knowing how competitive chess players are,in a dynamic competitive system almost all of them would give it a go just for the possibilty to play in elite level events. Note you just don't let them play at the very top without making them earn it. In other words you sell chessplayers a realistic dream, provided they work for it.
2) The ACF would actually have a universalised market and product that it could sell to sponsors because every chess player in Australia would be involved in the process. The ACF could, with proper management, show any potential sponsor, that it has a professional circuit and that real people are committed to producing quality chess of an international standard for a global market. The ACF would have something tangible that it could physically show really existed and that it was exciting.
3) The quailty of Australian chess would increase for the participants. Collectively speaking, more IM, GM and FM possibilities would be available since by definition there would be more top end tournaments with accessible promotion/relegation qualification systems. So instead of focussing on the individual chess player, Australian chess could focus on the group. This is why I argue so forcefully against the archaic state system that is in place. The point is not to get 1 person to the elite level as is current practice. The point ought to be to show every player what elite chess is really like, and offer everybody at least some possibility of reaching their maximum potential.
We, in Australian chess, need to recognise that we need a pool of competive 2200 players to produce a 2300 player, a pool of 2100 players to produce a 2200 player , a pool of 2000 players to produce a 2100 player and so on, all the way down to complete beginners. To do that they all need to play each other more, so for example, somebody like me with a 1900 needs to player regular chess against 1900 players from all parts of Australia, going up with good form into the 2000 section and down with poor form into the 1800 section. Not that it can be exactly like that but you get the idea.
In conclusion, Gary Wastell, despite what everybody may or may not think about him, has produced in Victoria, in regards to the state championship, a basic structure that works well. By encouraging active tournament representation Victoria had 1 of the best reserve tournaments ever seen in Australian chess history. With a little tinkering the ACF could also have a similar product that could ensure high quality tournament chess.
All the ACF needs to do is to have the will, be allowed to function without state intervention, and recognise that sponsorship in chess is a chicken and egg argument, in that it does not matter which comes first as long as they both exist. To get quality chess you need a marketable product. To get a marketable product you need quality chess.
P.S. By world standards $35,000 is a drop in the ocean, who knows what the ACF could achieve if it got $100,000 or possibly $200,0000. All I know is they won't be able to get a brass razoo without a well thought out coherent plan that aims to generate income from the product.
Last edited by firegoat7; 16-01-2006 at 01:04 PM.
hey firegoat why worry so much,tell me man you are not going to start this again in 2 years time.who cares its 1 turny every 2 years man .
Listen maaannn. Why don't you worry about your own chess and let us non chess players who are interested in chess administration discuss such things, ok?Originally Posted by bobby1972
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)