Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 340
  1. #61
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Tossing in my 2c


    (3) Disagree here, for reasons I have argued elsewhere.
    I basically accept that there ought to be spots for state champions, but I do not believe that weak state championships ought to qualify. If the ACF is serious about retaining these clauses then it ought to open up the whole championship structure. For instance, I am suggesting that it would be better for some states if they made thir championships open to stronger players from interstate, (even if they do not live in that state). The tournaments ought to be both open and eligible for the winner to progress into Oz championships, even if the winner does not live in that state.
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun

    (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.
    Personally I am not in favor of anybody selecting another player because I find this method selective. However, I would rather see spots decided by peers instead of selectors who, quite simply, do not really understand what chess strength is.

    cheers Fg7

  2. #62
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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?
    these questions seemed to have been missed, either deliberately or by mistake

  3. #63
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.
    this comment begs to be made- if you are relying on the guru to come to your rescue, you must be struggling

  4. #64
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    these questions seemed to have been missed, either deliberately or by mistake
    But Garvin you were being so negative that I didn't dare reply - maybe we can talk about it in Brisbane.

  5. #65
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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.
    So in other word, adding 2 juniors in, does not disqualify worthier adults.....

  6. #66
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    But Garvin you were being so negative that I didn't dare reply - maybe we can talk about it in Brisbane.
    sure, i am only playing in the minor, maybe or nothing at all. Not sure. But i will be around somewhere at some stage, but more likely in the afternoon

  7. #67
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    So in other word, adding 2 juniors in, does not disqualify worthier adults.....
    correct

  8. #68
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    You are not going to stir me. I am the one who catches flak because I maintain the women need nurturing and special programs.......
    OK, perhaps AC was onto something.. should we give them queen starts?

    (lol, troll)
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  9. #69
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    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.
    There are more thana few problems with your way of shownig this. Firstly you were rendering the opinino of anther poster who would be better served expressing that opinion first hand. Further one could argue that the stronger players may have vested interest in promoting such players. Finally, as I pointde out the opinion of the elite players are important but an ability to play chess does not necessarily equate to an ability to govern chess.

    I would value hearing Ian's opinion, because of his experience not playing ability, but would appreciate hearing it first hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Is this true ?- I didn't think there was an set limit, although I am sure there must be some sort of "ideal" figure.
    Whether or not there is an hard limit or a soft limit the same argument applies.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    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.
    That's not funny. I feel terrible about that, as you know. I thought you were being abusive to me and so I responded. This is the same thnig that got me into trouble with Libby.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    I said your suggestion was a good idea - just trying to point out the practical problems. Maybe Chessguru can come to the rescue.
    I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made.

    Seriously though I see the problem is that such a tournament would have to lose money so would need sponsorship either from the ACF or a philanthropic benefactor. Should such funds become available then it should be considered but I think you need a more elite event than the Ergas tourny in Melbourne. Perhaps you could run it as two events with elite players and top squad members in the A event and weaker adults and the bottom half of the squad in the other. Perhaps not run at the same time. If it was run this way I would hope you would get the top squad players valuing the event and bothing to turn up.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #70
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    correct
    Fair enough. But providing junior with a specific entry clause still means they may be selected to play ahead of potentially more worth adults who don't meet the normal selection criteria and are refused entry based on the junior specific clause by reason of age.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #71
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I would value hearing Ian's opinion, because of his experience not playing ability, but would appreciate hearing it first hand.
    Ian reads the BB all the time but doesn't post often (sensible man).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind

    Whether or not there is an hard limit or a soft limit the same argument applies.
    Umm - doesn't seem to for me. If 40 over 2150 people apply and all get in and then a couple of juniors get let in under a special clause, how is anyone losing out. There is nothing in bylaw 1 that would allow a few extra adults in if the juniors didn't get in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That's not funny. I feel terrible about that, as you know. I thought you were being abusive to me and so I responded. This is the same thnig that got me into trouble with Libby.
    I think you are getting over sensitive. When I want to be nasty I am usually fairly blunt. Are you offering is hardly at the mean end of comments.


    I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made.

    Seriously though I see the problem is that such a tournament would have to lose money so would need sponsorship either from the ACF or a philanthropic benefactor. Should such funds become available then it should be considered but I think you need a more elite event than the Ergas tourny in Melbourne. Perhaps you could run it as two events with elite players and top squad members in the A event and weaker adults and the bottom half of the squad in the other. Perhaps not run at the same time. If it was run this way I would hope you would get the top squad players valuing the event and bothing to turn up.
    Agreed - it would need a lot of sponsorship in order to attract the elite adults.

    I wasn't suggesting it should be like the Ergas, or even part of the Ergas Camp which is very much a young development squad idea. A couple of years ago I combined the Young Masters and NECG and while that allowed me to do two things for the price of one, it had a lot of problems. (Mainly the weaker kids being resentful at being excluded from the stronger tournaments).

    So running as two parallel tournaments is not really a good idea.

    Anyone we are indulging in the dreaded thread drift and probably should stop. I will tuck this idea away for a time when money and organisers permit.

  12. #72
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    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.
    Well the problem with this statement is that it is empirically false.Let us look at the facts, but let me state this disclaimer first- I believe that Raymond Song and Chris Wallis are both capable of doing well in the Australian championship.

    Nevertheless, the ACF has now made an exception by allowing in the 10th rated Australain junior (chris) to play. Clearly then Jenni ,the other 8 juniors above him including (Raymond has also been made into an exception), now have grounds to play should they so desire.In fact who could prevent them from playing, now that a standard has been met.

    As for your GM arguement, well it is quite frankly bollocks. The role of the ACF ought not to be to produce elite players at everyone elses expense, the role of the ACF ought to be to be to provide the strongest tournament scene possible. To do that it has to be fair.

    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.
    I find nothing interesting about this [his] position at all. In fact if I was really cynical I could say a lot about this/[his] preference for juniors over adult players, but then again this might misrepresent the/his position because, he did not say anything to us, we only have you as a source on which to base these claims.Hardly authorative.

    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.
    Nonsense. This country has some fantastic chess and believe it or not juniors ought to earn their spots by playing in some of the fantastic opportunities on offer.

    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.
    You are full of it. But for what it is worth I will take you on. I challenge any junior in your beloved state to beat me in a match. You put up $500 and I will put up $500...winner takes all over 6 games. There is your money on the line!

    Nevertheless, even though your arguement is just plain nonsense, I better point out the reasons why. Nobody is claiming that there is much difference between a 2000 adult and a 2000 junior, give or take 100 points. What they will say is this, given the opportunity they will both probably make about the same sort of scores.

    However, that is not the issue is it? The issue is fairness, it is about what is morally correct. Let us look at what the talented junior player can play in. State junior titles, Australian junior titles, Asian junior title and World junior titles...including every event an adult can play in based on rating.

    If we can compare adult possibilities we see....no junior championship opportunity at a state,national, regional and international level. Tournaments, by the way which can often be IM and GM events.

    So who is the one really being prejudiced here? Those who say that juniors (with the already notable exception of Australian junior champions) ought to play in the Oz champs, simply because they are juniors or those that say make them qualify like everyone else?

    Maybe your views are part of the problem with junior burn-out. Maybe your views are the reasons why Australia's 2000-2200 pool of players is so out of whack with International standards. Maybe, idiots like you who suggest 2150 players "are diluting the strength', have no real understanding of what is required to produce a Grandmaster, let alone a thriving competitive chess environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni
    I suspect most of them don't atually like playing improving juniors.
    Atually , most of dem, whoever dey r, probably enjoy the challenge and believe it or not, unlike yourself, who is so obviously ageist, like to play chess with chess players as opposed to the pathetic self centered mis-construction you misrepresent them to be. Quite simply, you need to grow up and start to understand that the Australian championships are not day care centres modelled on your Canberra State championship experiences.

  13. #73
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    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.
    These statements are naive in the extreme. Let me start by saying this- age is no barrier to learning. Secondly, Andrew Bird (ok he is in his 20s) clearly refutes the nonsense you have just espoused, but notice if he had finished second in the N.S.W championship, you would not push for him to get into the Australian championship, even though it would have still been a fantastic performance by an adult, but if he was a junior you would say...he is sooooo talented..well, yes he is, but guess what, he learnt chess as an adult. Talent is not restricted to age

    As for the sky being the limit, bollocks. Chess is littered with the broken dreams of juniors who never made it to the elite level, despite dominating their own peers when younger. Just remember the talentless adult Maurice Ashley became a Grandmaster while the talented junior Josh Waitzkin, didn't know how to defend against an attack on his king. No bad when you consider that Ashley and Waitzkin came from similar competitive circles ie. New York Chess.

    cheers Fg7

  14. #74
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Ian reads the BB all the time but doesn't post often (sensible man).
    Perhaps but he does post. Probably doesn't want to get embroiled in a flamewar the way I love to.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Umm - doesn't seem to for me. If 40 over 2150 people apply and all get in and then a couple of juniors get let in under a special clause, how is anyone losing out. There is nothing in bylaw 1 that would allow a few extra adults in if the juniors didn't get in.
    True I accept this point but there still is an inequity as I mention in my reply to Garvin.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    I think you are getting over sensitive. When I want to be nasty I am usually fairly blunt. Are you offering is hardly at the mean end of comments.
    Hey, I'm a very sensitive guy. Ask anyone. Belthasur thinks I'm a girl, Libby and you think I'm a Vic junior, (lord knows what the guru thinks I am but I have a few ideas) and in reality I'm miles from all those things. I just like the debate. However there was an negative connotation to your comment which I took offense to, and hence my reaction. But I do conceed your comment was mild than many that I've been subjected to over the years.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #75
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    I'm out of this - now the goat is back it will all get ultra mean and silly.

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
  •