Australian chess wheel reinvented again!

[Kevin Bonham]

This is my reply to eclectic's post about the state of Australian chess on the "A little history from the Mexicans" thread.

A general comment: every few months some dreamer slaps up some grand design for an absolute overhaul of Australian chess on these boards. These overhauls are generally characterised by (i) gross impracticality (ii) ignorance of chess-political realities and (iii) lack of valid causal arguments, eg problems are cited and proposals are made but there is not a strong logical link between the problems and the proposals.

To those seeking to come up with good reform proposals I would suggest the following:

1. Start with an identifiable basic goal in Aus chess that should be achievable but is currently failing.
2. Attempt to identify as many significant causes of that problem as possible, not just one or two minor causes.
3. Attempt to develop achievable solutions for as many of these problems as you can, bearing in mind any disadvantages of your solution and also considering whether your solution is politically feasible under the current structure.

Now, to eclectic's post:

So when will the National Australian Chess Body (whatever the title one wishes to give it) be constituted to consist of chess clubs directly (thus bypassing and eliminating the state/territory associations)?

We could have it that each club can send a delegate for every 50 (fifty) members they have.

The present National Conference functions by State Associations sending delegates (to a certain number based on population). The total number of delegates allowed is currently in the mid-20s. The conferences are held in conjunction with a major event making it likely that most states can have someone present. If they can't, there will tend to be spare people to act on behalf of the few states who can't make it.

However, if you had a conference composed of reps from every club the number of delegates would be too unwieldy to allow fair representation from states distant from the event. The only way to get around this would be allowing collection of multiple proxies, and then people would accumulate proxies and very few would actually turn up to the meeting. So I don't see an ACF with club delegates as very practical.

Even if it was, can you see enough current State Associations supporting this?

Smaller clubs could combine their numbers for the purposes for being eligible to send a delegate.

This assumes that the smaller clubs will agree on everything that is on the agenda, they may very well not. It also assumes they can find a person willing and able to go to the meeting even between them.

Also, your proposal is open to corruption. Eg chess players at one club form another club with very similar membership lists and thereby double their conference votes.

We could then have the Annual National Conference actually being concerned with devising an Australia wide chess game plan.

What makes you think that a system based on clubs would be any more active in this regard than one based on states (especially as with more delegates a club system would be very unwieldy)?

This conference could for example appoint "commissioners" to deal with important events throughout the year or to deal with specialised aspects of chess in Australia.

This is sounding like a variant of the Jammo commission model. Remember there is not much point making a proposal to change the ACF Constitution unless at least some NSWCA delegates are likely to support it.

Why not abolish the state championship concept

Why abolish it? It's not as if having extra major events as you suggest would make State Champs impossible to run. This was already dealt with on the thread dealing with firegoat's vaguely similar proposal for a souped-up series of Aus Championship qualifiers.

and devise a circuit of 12 or 13 eleven round ( one game per day ) "classics" assigned to various places around Australia according to bids ( or whatever ) with games starting at maybe 4pm to allow those who work some chance to enter

Yes, if they live in the same state and if they work close to the venue and if their employer lets them and if their family (if any) doesn't mind them being out from 7am-10pm or so every day for two working weeks, and if they even bother entering at all given the pressures of playing a long hard chess game directly after a long hard day's work. The last is the most difficult problem to deal with - the point of one game per day is to lift game quality but no-one's going to play their best after rushing from a day at work direct to the venue day after day after day.

---- ie make this a Super Grand Prix ciruit which determines the Australian Champion or even determines Olympiad selections.

Again, this has all been disposed of before. Using a circuit to determine these things is grossly unfair to those unable to commit to that much chess, especially for travel reasons.

How many Grandmasters have we got ?

TWO !!

Glad you can count. Now, do you really expect us to believe that the issues of tournament structure and ACF political composition contribute even one tenth of the reasons why Australia does not have more GMs?

WITH THE ABSENCE OF A HIGH CATEGORY LEVEL SPONSORSHIP SUPPORTED TOURNAMENT CIRCUIT STRUCTURE (GM NORM LEVEL) (PRESENTLY UNACHIEVABLE DUE TO THE [DIS]-ORGANISATION AND BICKERING THAT GOES ON IN AUSTRALIAN CHESS) THERE AIN'T NO WAY GRANDMASTERS ETC ARE GOING TO WASTE THEIR TIME COMING HERE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH COMPETITION FOR NORMS !!!

So, you want a circuit of a dozen or so events which are all going to attract piles of overseas GMs, and you are expecting this to attract sufficient publicity to be worth the sponsor's while (it would be quite expensive) in a country without much of a track record of strong chess performance and where chess only gets marginal media attention?

If you reckon this is feasible, why don't you go find the ACF a corporate sponsor who would be willing to underwrite the costs involved in running such a series from scratch? Because I reckon you're just absolutely dreaming here.

To my way of thinking, NECG have put their money where the most effective path to improvement in the peak strength of Australian chess is, intensive elite junior development. If we keep growing each age cohort of juniors stronger and stronger so that we're getting better juniors younger and younger then we will end up with a pile of young IMs some of whom are bound to reach GM strength eventually. Remember: just having GM norm opportunities in Australia doesn't mean our players will become GMs. They need to be strong enough to get results that are good enough.

The statistical signs over the last 10 years are very much that a focus on junior talent will slowly get somewhere. The ratings gaps between leading adults and top 20 juniors are much lower than they were 10 years ago - posted some stats on this a couple of years back.

[PHAT]

So, you want a circuit of a dozen or so events which are all going to attract piles of overseas GMs, and you are expecting this to attract sufficient publicity to be worth the sponsor's while (it would be quite expensive) in a country without much of a track record of strong chess performance and where chess only gets marginal media attention?

If you reckon this is feasible, why don't you go find the ACF a corporate sponsor who would be willing to underwrite the costs involved in running such a series from scratch? Because I reckon you're just absolutely dreaming here. [bold by MS]

Don't be a F-W. eclectic is saying that a nation wide structure, well coordinated and supported by the chess community must precede the task of finding a big money sponsor.

[chesslover]

Don't be a F-W. eclectic is saying that a nation wide structure, well coordinated and supported by the chess community must precede the task of finding a big money sponsor.

do not be nasty and disrespectful to the Grand Poobah by calling him names

You can make your point without being rude

I thought that your new year resolution was to stop fighting with everyone in the BB - or did that only apply in relation to Bill?

[Bill Gletsos]

CL looks like you quoted and responded to a post that is no longer visible.

[Garvinator]

CL looks like you quoted and responded to a post that is no longer visible.

i can see it

[Bill Gletsos]

Yes everyone can now but there was awhile there when no one could.

[skip to my lou]

I already explained why in the non-chess thread.

[Kevin Bonham]

Don't be a F-W. eclectic is saying that a nation wide structure, well coordinated and supported by the chess community must precede the task of finding a big money sponsor.

I nowhere disputed that he said that. However he also said (or more accurately, shouted) that GMs from overseas would not come in sufficient numbers until a sufficiently sponsored circuit existed.

My view was that there would be no motivation for big money sponsorship of such a circuit until Australian chess first improves its media profile, particularly through outstanding performance.

What eclectic is talking about there (in a more practical form) may eventually happen but I think Australian chess needs to get stronger largely off its own bat first.

I would welcome any examples that might prove otherwise.

[chesslover]

for those who want to know what happened this is all in the strings theory thread

essentially Matt used his right of free speech to state something that Jeo did not like, and Jeo ignored our dear Matt. Unfortunately as Jeo is an admin, when he ignores someone that person is also automatically ignored by the whole board.

When Bill pointed this "mistake" out to Jeo, he immediatly reveresed the ignore of matt, and as a result we can all see the posts of matt again - unless of course people have him on ignore, in which case they cannot

[Kevin Bonham]

There has been some moderation on the relevant threads, Jeo received rather more provocation than is apparent from what is there.

[PHAT]

What eclectic is talking about there (in a more practical form) may eventually happen but I think Australian chess needs to get stronger largely off its own bat first.

Yes, agreed.

[firegoat7]

First cab of the rank,

A serious group of chessplayers need to lobby the ACF, so that the Australian championship becomes an annual event.

FG7

[Kevin Bonham]

First cab of the rank,

A serious group of chessplayers need to lobby the ACF, so that the Australian championship becomes an annual event.

I think this is a good idea too (and have mentioned so before), the unresolved question is what to do with the Open, one event that sometimes has, when organised far enough in advance, attracted grandmasters from overseas in sufficient numbers?

[arosar]

You blokes reckon there's a prob in Aussie chess? Well, get a load of this: http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200402201604.htm

AR