Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 340
  1. #31
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hello,

    Just for arguements sake...what is the source of your information, Jenni? Do you know the date when this information was made available.


    .
    http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/By-law1.txt

    It is available to anyone who cares to visit the ACF site. I have been told that any constitutional changes are reflected as soon as feasible on the website.

  2. #32
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,398
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    The laws in green are very strange....they seem to contradict old laws and look like nothing more then suspicious power abuses. In fact, notice how one of theose laws would probably favour a current selector. Does this mean that Bonham will stand down due to a "conflict of interests"?
    The only thing that's very strange here is your completely irrational babble in which even the most prosaic detail becomes a fountain of suspicion and paranoia. Firstly the rule about 2000 state champs being eligible to play in 2002 no longer has any application. Secondly I was not a 2000 state champion. Thirdly my 2000 state championships had already been held when the motion was passed. Fourthly I am not an applicant for this year's Aus Champs so how would I have conflict of interest anyway?

    The background to that rule was that until the rule was changed state champions from the two preceding years could play, so 2000 and 2001 state champs could play in the 2002 title (which started in the last days of 2001). After that rule was changed, only reigning state champions qualified, so 2002 state champions weren't eligible for the 2003-4 event. IIRC the thinking was that a person who was a dethroned state champion had not by that virtue alone earned the right to compete in a national title.

    P.S These laws are very different from previous laws concerning selection for the ACF Championship.
    Going back how far? I don't recall that much change over the past say 5 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthesar
    Doesn't glicko implementation remedy that?
    Not entirely. A very fast improving junior may still be significantly underrated under Glicko (although it does not happen as often as some say.)

    What year was the clause put in?
    That I also don't know but it has been there in some form throughout this decade.

  3. #33
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhambot
    The only thing that's very strange here is your completely irrational babble in which even the most prosaic detail becomes a fountain of suspicion and paranoia. Firstly the rule about 2000 state champs being eligible to play in 2002 no longer has any application. Secondly I was not a 2000 state champion. Thirdly my 2000 state championships had already been held when the motion was passed. Fourthly I am not an applicant for this year's Aus Champs so how would I have conflict of interest anyway?
    It looks like you responded to the "irrational babble', so what does that say about you, Cape barren goosey lucy Not that anyone on the mainline actually follows or cares about Tasmanian chess.

    cheers Fg7

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    any danger this thread will not descend into a goat v bonham slanging match. It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    any danger this thread will not descend into a goat v bonham slanging match. It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.
    Ignore the slanging match. How would you like to see the regs?

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Ignore the slanging match. How would you like to see the regs?
    i dont know yet, but the previous discussions in this thread were proving useful. I am not sure how relevant the 2150 cut off is since there are many ways to get in under it. Also I think it should be higher due to the up lifts.

    That is one area.

  7. #37
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,771
    The cut off use to be less than 2150,it was raised to 2150 after the ratings rise.The thing you have to remember Garvin is that players below 2200 dont have a "protected" rating, a 2100-2140 player is just as eligibile to lose as many rating points as you.

    The key question is should a junior below 2150 have 3 ways to qualify for the Australian championship [australian junior champion/state champion/improving"junior"] when an adult has one[state champion]?

  8. #38
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    It was actually a half decent thread that might have improved the selection criteria as I was possibly considering starting the process to change the regs in some way for 2008.
    What about these ideas gg.

    1) Place an activity clause of 20 games a year for players rated above 2150.
    2) Drop the "promising junior clause" completely
    3) Ditch state championship qualification
    4) Ditch any rule that has any clause "by selection from the ACF"
    5) Create a reserve list. Ie Instead of automatically qualifying anybody who does not meet the initial requirements, put them on a reserve list. Get either there peers to vote on their inclusion (those that did qualify) or have a pre-qualifying tournament.

    cheers Fg7

  9. #39
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    What about these ideas gg.

    1) Place an activity clause of 20 games a year for players rated above 2150.
    2) Drop the "promising junior clause" completely
    3) Ditch state championship qualification
    4) Ditch any rule that has any clause "by selection from the ACF"
    5) Create a reserve list. Ie Instead of automatically qualifying anybody who does not meet the initial requirements, put them on a reserve list. Get either there peers to vote on their inclusion (those that did qualify) or have a pre-qualifying tournament.

    cheers Fg7
    Tossing in my 2c

    (1) A sensible idea, although attempts at placing minimum activity clauses on Olympiad selections has been met with strong opposition by some eligible players, and a couple of ACF officials. If the intention is to stop players "warehousing" their ratings to maintain eligibility, then maybe just requiring a ! or !! next to their rating is a possible alternative.

    (2) No objections from me on this one. Winning the reserves is a big enough challenge for a promising junior as far as I'm concerned.

    (3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere.

    (4) A well worded clause (or clauses) should both allow the ACF some flexibility in dealing with obvious anomolies, while avoiding giving them free reign to more populist tendencies. So I disagree here.

    (5) Reasonable, except for the peer voting selection. If you think the ACF is going to indulge in cronyism, I shudder to think what will happen if this is the alternative. (I assume you meant "disqualifying" btw). Just have the list in order of priority (eg averaged ACF/FIDE ratings) and fill the gaps from the top.

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Tossing in my 2c

    (1) A sensible idea, although attempts at placing minimum activity clauses on Olympiad selections has been met with strong opposition by some eligible players, and a couple of ACF officials. If the intention is to stop players "warehousing" their ratings to maintain eligibility, then maybe just requiring a ! or !! next to their rating is a possible alternative.
    would the opponents of this type of activity requirement be the ones who would be the target of the activity requirement. A couple of acf officials is not a majority council decision.

    (2) No objections from me on this one. Winning the reserves is a big enough challenge for a promising junior as far as I'm concerned.
    I whole heartedly agree with this. The two acf selections at the moment are just over 2000 and I think they have been around that mark for a while. It is a long way from 2000 to 2150. This section should be removed.

    (3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere.
    Concur as well

    (4) A well worded clause (or clauses) should both allow the ACF some flexibility in dealing with obvious anomolies, while avoiding giving them free reign to more populist tendencies. So I disagree here.
    agree again.

    (5) Reasonable, except for the peer voting selection. If you think the ACF is going to indulge in cronyism, I shudder to think what will happen if this is the alternative. (I assume you meant "disqualifying" btw). Just have the list in order of priority (eg averaged ACF/FIDE ratings) and fill the gaps from the top.
    The peer voting part is a bad idea and open to blatant and wide spread rorting. I thought we were trying to keep voting selections down to a complete minimum ie zero?

    Instead of having an improving junior clause, maybe there should be a clause where consistent play in the major tournaments around Australia is rewarded. It allows in a player who has done best out of everyone who doesnt qualify from any other criteria.

    Of course a few players could be very close in this category and then the acf council decides who is let in. This would then allow more players from the stronger states in, who do have less opportunity to qualify under the current system if they are just under 2150.

    I do think though that the 2150 should be raised to 2200 and be STRICTLY ENFORCED as a qualifying barrier. It seems very rubbery at the moment and doesnt really mean much.

  11. #41
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    I whole heartedly agree with this. The two acf selections at the moment are just over 2000 and I think they have been around that mark for a while. It is a long way from 2000 to 2150. This section should be removed.

    .
    Well I am obviously not going to agree with this one.

    Before I rabbit on about juniors, let me say that I agree with some sort of activity criteria - both for the Aus Champs and for Olympiad Selection. If you have a look at other sports, such as Tennis, their ratings decay pretty rapidly if they don't play.

    Warning - Juniorphilic stuff from now on.

    Ray is only 11 - he had a very strong performance in the NSW Championships. Chris is 15 and is putting in some very good back to back performances in Victorian tournaments (which we are told are the strongest in Australia).

    While I am not a fan of a deluge of juniors all trying to play the Aus Champs, I think if the ACF is very selective and takes a SMALL number of improving juniors then this can only help Aus chess long term.

    It is so hard to find good strong tournaments to play in that to not allow this opportunity to serious juniors is doing a disservice to chess. Remember Juniors grow up incredibly rapidly and are the adults of the future. Compare our situation to Europe where tournaments of this strength are a dime a dozen and all the juniors get opportunities to play in them.

    The difference between adults and juniors is that on the whole an adult has found their niche. They might have the potential to be much higher, but realistically if they haven't got there by 30, they are probably not going to, given increasing demands of family and career etc.

    While with a junior the sky is the limit and the more opportunities that can be given to them the higher they will go.

    I am not a big fan of focusing on a particular junior and giving them everything. Picking winners just doesn't work for me. I would prefer to create an environment where as many as possible are given opportunities. However given that only a few should be let into something like the Aus Champs, it is not unreasonable to pick a few enthusiastic juniors who are demonstrating real potential.

  12. #42
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Jenni,

    Your argument seems based on the premise that a goal of the Aust Championship is to develop juniors. I think it is too important and held too infrequently to really be abused in this manner.

    I'm all for inclusion of juniors who are of sufficient strength but I don't believe that promise and enthusiasm alone are sufficient criteria. Obviously there are many promising and enthusiatic juniors going around and no one can doubt Chris and Raymond's talent. The question though for me is will their inclusing make it a better tournament, not will it provide a good development opportunity for the respective candidates.

    I take your point regarding the availability of tournaments of this strength in Australia, so let's not dilute that strength too much. If we want to provide more tournaments with the specific goal of developing juniors then why not hold an Old Masters/New Masters style of tournament with some of the junior development budget rather than use the premier Australian event for that purpose?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    I asked this question previously:

    I think the first question that should be asked is: Why is there an improving junior clause?

    I would like to know how many juniors that got in under this clause have then automatically qualified (ie over 2150 acf) two years later for the next Australian Championships?
    and got an answer of one player Tomek Rej. Not a convincing argument for having the criteria.

    I guess part of the reason I want the criteria about improving juniors dropped is that the entry to the australian championships should be decided on the rating you have at the time of final entries, not on a rating you could have in two years time.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 13-11-2005 at 01:00 PM.

  14. #44
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    I asked this question previously:



    and got an answer of one player Tomek Rej. Not a convincing argument for having the criteria.

    .
    Is it your assumption your that heaps of juniors are using it? - I have to admit to not taking too much notice of what juniors are using it, but given my interest in juniors, I am sure I could recall lots of juniors if it was being (ab) used extensively. Tomek is the one I can recall off hand - and he might even have been there via the Aus Junior champsion route. Ronald Yu I think was another one and had a FIDE of 2265 at the time. He hasn't progressed to over 2150 ACF at the moment, but is in year 12, so not that much chess over the last 18 months.

    Maybe someone who does have access to records, could let us know what juniors have been let in, and then we can examine their progress.

  15. #45
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Is it your assumption your that heaps of juniors are using it? - I have to admit to not taking too much notice of what juniors are using it, but given my interest in juniors, I am sure I could recall lots of juniors if it was being (ab) used extensively. Tomek is the one I can recall off hand - and he might even have been there via the Aus Junior champsion route. Ronald Yu I think was another one and had a FIDE of 2265 at the time. He hasn't progressed to over 2150 ACF at the moment, but is in year 12, so not that much chess over the last 18 months.

    Maybe someone who does have access to records, could let us know what juniors have been let in, and then we can examine their progress.
    Now you are arguing that it has not been abused and therefore it should stay. But there is a case to be made for removing the clause if there exists the possibility of it being abused.

    Really I don't care much one way or the other provided the checks are there to ensure that only suitably strong juniors are able to get through. However in this day of high activity and glicko rating system I though think that the case for a junior to make that they are patently over 2150 playing strength and yet under 2150 rating has become increasing more difficult. Therefore why have a superfluous clause?

    I do reiterate though that viewing the Australian Championship as a junior development opportunity is an undersell.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
  2. 2005 ACT Championship
    By Ian Rout in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 19-09-2005, 09:38 AM
  3. Olympiad selections [2004]
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 699
    Last Post: 16-10-2004, 09:22 PM
  4. Men's Olympiad - your selection
    By Alan Shore in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 14-07-2004, 02:34 PM
  5. Women's Olympiad - your selection
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-05-2004, 08:03 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
  •