Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 340
  1. #46
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    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 think if 6 or 7 juniors were let in it would be an abuse. To let in 1 or 2 is part of chess development which should be important to all. Everyone rabbits on about who Australia's next GM will be. Without giving juniors opportunities like this we will never get another GM.

    It is interesting that someone like Ian, who one would think would have a vested interest in protecting this tournament, is someone who seems to support a few juniors being let in who are of the correct standard.

    I don't believe that the Aus champsionships is there to develop juniors - I do believe that in a chess poor country like Australia we have to take all the opportunities we can, because there just aren't very many.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I take your point regarding the availability of tournaments of this strength in Australia, so let's not dilute that strength too much. .
    Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. Are you and Garvin prepared to put money on the line? Cos I am willing to bet that none of the juniors will finish at the bottom. If I am right then maybe it is the borderline 2150 adults, who are diluting the strength.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    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.
    This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

    Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.

  2. #47
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    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.
    Yes I don't believe it has been abused and if anyone can give the stats on the Aus Champs where it has been used maybe we can see. I would be amazed if it was ever used by more than a very few juniors in any tournament.

    I don't think it is there because juniors are agueing that they are under rated. I think it is there quite deliberately to pick a few juniors who have blue sky potential and enable them to reach it because they get to play in a strong tournament.

    i.e. it is not that they are already at 2150 strength and it is not reflected in the rating system (although this might be true as well - with juniors the rating system is often trailing their strength), but more that they are at over 2000 and rising rapidly and this tournament can help push them along even more.

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. Are you and Garvin prepared to put money on the line? Cos I am willing to bet that none of the juniors will finish at the bottom. If I am right then maybe it is the borderline 2150 adults, who are diluting the strength.
    I have also said that maybe there should be an uplift to 2200, taking into account the rating uplifts of recent years. The borderline adults should also be heavily scrutinised before being entered.

    Regarding your bet offer, i would like to see the final field first

    This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

    Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.
    I would actually be willing to run it. But three questions arise:
    1) Do you really want me organising/ running a junior tournament
    2) How could this be done in the current climate?
    3) How many players are really going to come to somewhere in the greater south east Brisbane area for a tournament like this if huge amounts of money isnt offered?


    My main point of all this is that I am just looking at all the criteria that players can get in under and seeing if all are required. I would like to see optional selections have less influence on who actually gets a run in the australian championships.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 13-11-2005 at 03:22 PM.

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. Are you and Garvin prepared to put money on the line? Cos I am willing to bet that none of the juniors will finish at the bottom. If I am right then maybe it is the borderline 2150 adults, who are diluting the strength.
    I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:

    Code:
     28   Eriksson, Ingela 	     NSW        2096	 3 
     29   Haasse, Adam 	     WA 	2179	2½ 	
     30   Szuveges, Narelle S    VIC	1920	1½
    Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place?
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:

    Code:
     28   Eriksson, Ingela 	     NSW        2096	 3 
     29   Haasse, Adam 	     WA 	2179	2½ 	
     30   Szuveges, Narelle S    VIC	1920	1½
    Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place?
    considering my previous comments in the fide title envy thread, i was not going to head in this direction one area at a time thanks the only thing i would say is, see Jenni is right, all adults

  6. #51
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    I've just had a look at the Aus Champs in 2004 in Adelaide. Peter Jovanovic played as ACT Champion, coming in with a score of 5/11, the same as Tim Reilly.

    Tomek Rej scored 5.5, along with Darryl Joahnsen, Depasquale, George Xie, Canfell etc.

    Ronald Yu scored 6 coming =8th - so I am really not seeing much dilution or weakness there?

  7. #52
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    I'd wager neither of you are right if we look at the stats: The last three finishers of the 2004 Aus Champs:

    Code:
     28   Eriksson, Ingela 	     NSW        2096	 3 
     29   Haasse, Adam 	     WA 	2179	2½ 	
     30   Szuveges, Narelle S    VIC	1920	1½
    Oh my, look at that.. what's common to: last place and 3rd last place?
    You are not going to stir me. I am the one who catches flak because I maintain the women need nurturing and special programs.......

  8. #53
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    considering my previous comments in the fide title envy thread, i was not going to head in this direction one area at a time thanks the only thing i would say is, see Jenni is right, all adults
    I have never maintained that female players are as strong as male - quite the opposite. I objected to a female being rubbished as being too weak to deserve a title that she had won fairly. A totally different issue.

  9. #54
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    I think if 6 or 7 juniors were let in it would be an abuse. To let in 1 or 2 is part of chess development which should be important to all. Everyone rabbits on about who Australia's next GM will be. Without giving juniors opportunities like this we will never get another GM.
    This is patently false there have been two GMs and will be more, with or without the junior admission clause to the Aust Champs. I assume you were just being rhetorical.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    It is interesting that someone like Ian, who one would think would have a vested interest in protecting this tournament, is someone who seems to support a few juniors being let in who are of the correct standard.
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Ian Rogers. However, I'd prefer if he expressed it himself rather than you making an appeal to authority. Note also that being an authority on playing chess does not make Ian's opinion on the running on the Australian Championship sacrosanct.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    I don't believe that the Aus champsionships is there to develop juniors - I do believe that in a chess poor country like Australia we have to take all the opportunities we can, because there just aren't very many.
    Neither are the opportunities many for a tournament of this kind for all elite players. If there are more applicants than spots then someone must miss out. I see no reason to favour juniors in particular for this tournament.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Why the assumption that the strength is being diluted? A junior is usually much tougher to play than an adult of the same rating. Are you and Garvin prepared to put money on the line? Cos I am willing to bet that none of the juniors will finish at the bottom. If I am right then maybe it is the borderline 2150 adults, who are diluting the strength.
    Since there is unlikely to be more than 2 juniours playing in a much larger field I'd give you better than even chance that someone else will do worse. This is hardly promoting your case though.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    This is a good idea - similar to what I did with Ergas this year. (That didn't work, but there were some inherent problems, including a clash with Geelong Open and the time controls) . However we need someone to run it - are you offering? Seems if we are short of chess tournaments in this country, we are even shorter of people to take on new ones.....

    Also it would need really good prize money to tempt the old masters. I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.
    You seem to have a comprehension problem. You were the one looking for junior development opportunities not me. I just said that the Australian Championship should not be prostituted to this end. I was offering you a suggestion which enabled you to improve your perceived problem. I can't see that an offer to run such a tournament was even vaguely implied by my suggestion.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #55
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Regarding your bet offer, i would like to see the final field first
    .
    That's OK - I can wait.
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    My main point of all this is that I am just looking at all the criteria that players can get in under and seeing if all are required. I would like to see optional selections have less influence on who actually gets a run in the australian championships
    I don't object to most of your suggestions, but I think having a few safety nets (which is all most of them are), is not a bad idea. If there were a fixed number of places, then it would be a problem. With a swiss adding in a couple of extra is just not an issue. If the juniors (for e.g.) are too weak then they can hover at the bottom and play the females.

  11. #56
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Yes I don't believe it has been abused and if anyone can give the stats on the Aus Champs where it has been used maybe we can see. I would be amazed if it was ever used by more than a very few juniors in any tournament.
    Whether or not it was abused in the past is irrelevent if it might be abused in the future. The abuse too is dependant on your opinin of the goal of the Australian Championship (see below).

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    I don't think it is there because juniors are agueing that they are under rated. I think it is there quite deliberately to pick a few juniors who have blue sky potential and enable them to reach it because they get to play in a strong tournament.
    It would seem to be really too infrequent to make much of a difference in this regard. It is only one 11 round tournament in 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    i.e. it is not that they are already at 2150 strength and it is not reflected in the rating system (although this might be true as well - with juniors the rating system is often trailing their strength), but more that they are at over 2000 and rising rapidly and this tournament can help push them along even more.
    It is here I guess we have a difference of philosophy. Can't see it is really necessary to use the Australian Championship in this way. As I said before it occurs too infrequently to really be of much use and by allowing one or two juniors you are disallowing one or two other candidates who might be stronger. I don't see why there should be a junior specific clause at all. Let all players apply based on merit irrespective of age.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #57
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    This is patently false there have been two GMs and will be more, with or without the junior admission clause to the Aust Champs. I assume you were just being rhetorical.
    Not rhetorical - dramatic is closer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Ian Rogers. However, I'd prefer if he expressed it himself rather than you making an appeal to authority. Note also that being an authority on playing chess does not make Ian's opinion on the running on the Australian Championship sacrosanct.
    The point I am trying to make is that if anyone should feel the need to exclude "weak" players, it should be the strong players. However in my experience they are often the ones to promote the juniors and encourage them to enter comps like the Aus Champs and the Zonals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind

    Neither are the opportunities many for a tournament of this kind for all elite players. If there are more applicants than spots then someone must miss out. I see no reason to favour juniors in particular for this tournament.
    Is this true ?- I didn't think there was an set limit, although I am sure there must be some sort of "ideal" figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You seem to have a comprehension problem. You were the one looking for junior development opportunities not me. I just said that the Australian Championship should not be prostituted to this end. I was offering you a suggestion which enabled you to improve your perceived problem. I can't see that an offer to run such a tournament was even vaguely implied by my suggestion.
    Careful Barry - you are being abusive again. How many more people do you want to drive away? I would have thought Libby was enough for one week.

    I said your suggestion was a good idea - just trying to point out the practical problems. Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    That's OK - I can wait.
    even if you couldnt wait, you dont have any choice


    I don't object to most of your suggestions, but I think having a few safety nets (which is all most of them are), is not a bad idea. If there were a fixed number of places, then it would be a problem. With a swiss adding in a couple of extra is just not an issue. If the juniors (for e.g.) are too weak then they can hover at the bottom and play the females.
    I think the only suggestion I made was raising the rating limit the rest were just some questions to get more information.

    I havent actually said anything about the women's champion clause because it can be won by someone above 2150/2200 if they actually played in the Australian open.

    Is there going to be a women's champion representative for this Australian championship, as there wasnt a women's champion awarded at the last Australian open.

    The current regulation is:

    c. the current or immediately previous Australian Women?s Champion;

  14. #59
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    As I said before it occurs too infrequently to really be of much use and by allowing one or two juniors you are disallowing one or two other candidates who might be stronger.
    .
    Can someone tell us if this is true? I don't believe so, as my understanding is there is not a fixed number of spots?

  15. #60
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Can someone tell us if this is true? I don't believe so, as my understanding is there is not a fixed number of spots?
    there is no fixed number at all. If 128 players meet the criteria and entered, the field would be 128 in size. Same if there were only 6.

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
  •