View Poll Results: Is the winner of the 2004 Goldcoast team tourney, the "real" Aust Club Champions?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - this is the best way to determine the Aust Club Champion Team

    10 62.50%
  • No - there may be a better way to determine the best Club Team in Aust

    6 37.50%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441

    Australian Clubs Team Champions

    On September 2004, the Australian Clubs Teams Championship, the brainchild of Kerry Corker and Graeme Gardiner, and which was first initiated in 2003 will be repeated at Rydges Oasis Resort

    This is an official Australian title event.

    Teams of 8, of which at least three must be female and three male. Reserves may be freely substituted. The three females must play at least 80% of (the number of rounds x 3) between them, and at least two of them must play in each round. Prizes are Trophies for the winning team and boards plus the title of Australian Clubs Team Champion. There are no cash prizes for this event. Just the glory!. Entry Fee is $400 per team (no extra charge for reserves).

    In 2003 , just six teams from 2003 participated.

    But since this is an official Australian title event, does this format enable the team that wins in Gold Coast in 2004, to call themselves "the Australian Clubs team champion"?

    Dont get me wrong - I do think that there should be a club event for Australian chess, and a yearly championship would be great - with the winner being able to call themselves the best chess club in Australia.

    However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.

    I know that this is not the fault of GG and the organisers. They did their best, and if people do nto come then what can they do? However it is hard for clubs to find 8 people and send them to Queensland for a week to contest the "Aust clubs championship" (esp for those not in eastern australia)

    A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate

    Then when individual scores for grand prix purposes are tabulated, we can also determine the "best chess club" by adding the scores of the nominated chess clubs of all grand prix point scorers.

    At least it will be better than the current setup - at least that is what I think anyway

    Are there any other options, or is the current setup by GG the best way to determine the "Australian Clubs Team Champions"?
    Always do your Best

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,483
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.
    At this stage the event is relatively low-key and social and the focus is on building interest. Hopefully if interest builds over time it will become a little more rigorous - for the time being as it is a new experiment a bit of looseness has to be expected.

    A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate
    You miss the main point of the title, which is to try to build up teams chess in Australia. Look at Europe and you will see how spectacularly successful this form of competition can be and how much it adds to the chess scene there.

  3. #3
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Teams of 8, of which at least three must be female and three male. Reserves may be freely substituted. The three females must play at least 80% of (the number of rounds x 3) between them, and at least two of them must play in each round. Prizes are Trophies for the winning team and boards plus the title of Australian Clubs Team Champion. There are no cash prizes for this event. Just the glory!. Entry Fee is $400 per team (no extra charge for reserves).

    In 2003 , just six teams from 2003 participated.

    But since this is an official Australian title event, does this format enable the team that wins in Gold Coast in 2004, to call themselves "the Australian Clubs team champion"?

    Dont get me wrong - I do think that there should be a club event for Australian chess, and a yearly championship would be great - with the winner being able to call themselves the best chess club in Australia.

    However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.

    I know that this is not the fault of GG and the organisers. They did their best, and if people do nto come then what can they do? However it is hard for clubs to find 8 people and send them to Queensland for a week to contest the "Aust clubs championship" (esp for those not in eastern australia)

    A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate

    Then when individual scores for grand prix purposes are tabulated, we can also determine the "best chess club" by adding the scores of the nominated chess clubs of all grand prix point scorers.

    At least it will be better than the current setup - at least that is what I think anyway

    Are there any other options, or is the current setup by GG the best way to determine the "Australian Clubs Team Champions"?
    This was a tremendous event and the winners were legitimate champions. The event was well publicised, the standard of entry was high, including Ian Rogers, (I think Darryl Johansen and several IM's. The event will be on again this year so the challenge is on.

    This is another case of you shooting from the hip CL. If Sydney was under-represented then take it up with your fellows, but there is life outside Sydney. It would augure well for Australian Chess to take chess out of the shabby halls and social clubs and see more prestigious events like this on the calendar.

    Many participants took a week away from their families and work to compete, they should be congratulated for their commitment. The team spirit creates a tremendous bond and camaraderie between team members. It took a lot of effort from a lot of people to get this together.

    Well done to Kerry in particular for his vision and determination to be able to turn a great idea into a wonderful reality, and to Graeme for his tireless work.

  4. #4
    CC International Master Kerry Stead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,118
    chesslover ...
    Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with??

    You seem to miss the point entirely!

    The tournament is not about determining which chess club is the 'best' in Australia, rather it is another way in which chess in Australia can be fostered and grown. The emphasis of the tournament seemed to be more directed towards the social aspect of having 50 or so likeminded people together in one place (ask anyone from Club Bullwinkle if you doubt this). Yes, a chess tournament was held; yes, the winners were awarded the title of 'Australian Club Teams Champion'; yes, the event will be run and won again in 2004; yes, Graeme Gardiner, Kerry Corker, Norm Braybrooke and everyone else involved in the organisation and running of the event should be thanked. However what you seem to thing the tournament is or should be is different to the idea that the organisers have.

    Let me tell you a short story about my own experience of the tournament. Initially I tried to organise a team from UNSW (which the team I finished up playing in was 'officially' named), however that did not eventuate, and the team became one of university students from around Sydney. However again it was not so simple, so we had to recruit a few 'potential' uni students for the team. Everything seemed to be going along fine until one of our team had a personal problem and had to withdraw from the team with only a few days to go before the event. Numerous phone calls, much pleading and begging got me nowhere as far as finding an eigth player for the team was concerned, until I called Graeme Gardiner and explained my dilemma. Wanting to make sure that the event happened (moreso than worrying about the technicalities of a team having all its members in Sydney), he suggested a Gold Coast girl who might be able to fill in on board 8 in the team. Reluctantly we accepted this offer, and pretty much agreed that the team was now fighting for 2nd place at best (behind the St George team headed by GM Rogers). Everyone on the team knew each other beforehand, however during the tournament our friendship grew ... the team bonded. This included the girl from the Gold Coast. In the end, our board 8 proved to be the difference, and her board-prize winning effort got us across the line.

    So what do you think I am planning to do for 2004? Get as close to the same team as last year (one of our team returned to Malaysia after spending a year studying out here, so he will need to be replaced), including the girl from the Gold Coast! Why? Because we consider ourselves a TEAM (after all isn't that one of the words in the title?)!

    I am sure that this year's event will be just as good if not better than the 2003 event (especially given that there will be less Scottish rugby thugs hogging the Rydges complex!), and will be just as much fun, both on and off the chess board! If you decide to come along chesslover, I'm sure that you'll change your tune about the event!

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Watch out, Kerry. You just might earn yourself a nomination in the best BB post of 2004 with that effort.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    I have to agree with other posters - Chesslover has missed the point totally.

    The idea behind the teams comp was to make a chess event "FUN" - something that is hard to do if you are just adding up Grand Prix points long distance.

    One of the major problems with chess, is it just lacks a social element. If you have a look at similar "mind sports" - bridge and wargaming of various types, they have a strong social element. Gareth is slowly being seduced by his father's wargaming interest, because he really enjoys the socialising that happens alongside the strategy and gaming. This is seriously missing in a game of chess, which can be intense focus for hours at a time.

    Caloundra (which is on the Sunshine coast, not the Gold coast), was a really fun event. Of course the chess was pretty serious and there were some really good games played. However the socialising that went on around it was what made the event a success. Tamzin was kidnapped by the St George team and taken to Steve Irwin's zoo and she still talks about it and how Ingela Erikkson had to touch a snake! We also talk about the "zoo effect" - everyone who went to the zoo that morning had a seriously bad afternoon game! OK - so maybe none of this contributes to the quality of the chess, but if it adds to the enthusiasm for the game and keeps people playing then it has succeeded in its aim. Life is about more than just winning!
    Last edited by jenni; 15-02-2004 at 10:09 PM.

  7. #7
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    At this stage the event is relatively low-key and social and the focus is on building interest. Hopefully if interest builds over time it will become a little more rigorous - for the time being as it is a new experiment a bit of looseness has to be expected.

    You miss the main point of the title, which is to try to build up teams chess in Australia. Look at Europe and you will see how spectacularly successful this form of competition can be and how much it adds to the chess scene there.
    I agree, that teams chess is good, and all the major sporting codes in australia, have club teams compettion as the mainstay of their sports. And yes, in Europe and in particular Germany it is very successful.

    All I am saying is, how can you say that the winner of the tourney is the "Australian club team champion", when clubs from MCC, North Sydney, WA, SA have all not entered. Also some of those who played in the "Aust club team champs" are not even members of these clubs, and do not play there regularly
    Always do your Best

  8. #8
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Its just a name - who cares! If you want to be technical, there were 3 states represented and 6 teams, which I think is all you need for a title to be legitimate. Hopefully over time the comp will grow - have to start somewhere. As I said before on another thread - Graeme does, while others talk (and whinge).

    The important thing is that everyone enjoyed it and it made people want to play more chess. A case in point is Sylvia Pleskott. For those who don't remember Sylvia, she was one of our "strong" girl players in the 90's and represented Australia a number of times. She had pretty much dropped off the chess horizon. She was bludgeoned into playing for the Uni team, because of the 3 female rule and had a wonderful time. As a result she played in the reserves in Adelaide in January and hopefully we will see a lot more of her.

    How about creating something chesslover, instead of always criticising!

  9. #9
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    there is no need to get narky

    I made a valid point. I am entitled to make it. maybe I am pedantic, but there was just 2 states (and one territory) representated - as Vic, Tas, SA and WA were not represented.

    And yes GG's idea of a club event is good, and I think it is a good idea in terms of social activity and developing chess. I am apprewciative of that.

    My point is only this - is the tourney the best way to determine the Australian chess club team champion?

    I am not argueing about the idea of GG, I am not agrueing about the social side, I am not argueing or criticising any part of the comp. All I am saying is that the title as an offical Australian chess title event, is not the best way to choose the Australian champion club team
    Always do your Best

  10. #10
    Account Suspended jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    but there was just 2 states (and one territory) representated - as Vic, Tas, SA and WA were not represented.
    Well this raises an interesting point - I had always been told that a title wasn't valid, unless 3 states/territories were represented. However I have just had a very quick flick through the constitution and by-laws (seem to be doing that a lot lately) and can find no mention of that.

    Can an ACF person please enlighten us as to whether there is any such rule for titles and how it applies?

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Stead
    chesslover ...
    Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with??

    You seem to miss the point entirely!

    The tournament is not about determining which chess club is the 'best' in Australia, rather it is another way in which chess in Australia can be fostered and grown. The emphasis of the tournament seemed to be more directed towards the social aspect

    That is not nice. I have the highest respect and admiration for you and you are taking me out of context.

    When you say that "chesslover ...Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? " that is WRONG as in W-R-O-N-G.

    There have only been 3 issues that I have had with initiatives - the ACF commisson proposal, the NECG appeal issue and the Sunshine coast team winner calling themsleves the offical "Aust club team champion". In fact in most of other ACF initiatives I have been fully supportive, and indeed in one of them (the best post 2003 prize) I have been most viciously attacked for supporting the ACF policy of having a prize for the best post 2003, supporting paul B in his decision to allow self nomination, and for supporting Paul B in allowing multiple self nominations

    In the NECG matter - the only issue I had was with the lack of appeal over the selection. Everything else, including the admirable and hard working efforts in getting the sponsor, the website you setup, the selection panel, the whole concept I had thought was excellent and very good work.

    Similarly I agree with this whole social side issues, the need for a club based team tournament, the fact that this is a great initiative etc. All I am saying in this issue is that teh winner is not the best Aust chess club team, as strong clubs in Australia have not entered, and in any case as you pointed out members who played are not regular members of the club they played for.

    To then state that this means that I am opposed to all initiatives is unfair and not just.

    PS - SInce you are so good at taking things out of context, do you want to join President Bush's team that is now trawling through Senator kerry's records in an effort to find items that they can use to attack him? Your legal skills will be very useful for them :p
    Always do your Best

  12. #12
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    CL,

    The ACTC is at the moment, principly as social teams event that draws groups of strong, average and weak players together for social-cum-serious chess. Many events and sports have there origin in such high spirited endevours - eg Triathlon and soccer respectively. That the ACTC has been blessed by the ACF as being a legit Australian Championship. If we are lucky, as the event grows in popularity - as it may well do - may also retain its heralded social atmosphere as the strength and representation grows.

    By not seeing this potential, you are missing the whole point of the event.

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by jenni
    Well this raises an interesting point - I had always been told that a title wasn't valid, unless 3 states/territories were represented. However I have just had a very quick flick through the constitution and by-laws (seem to be doing that a lot lately) and can find no mention of that.

    Can an ACF person please enlighten us as to whether there is any such rule for titles and how it applies?
    jenni,

    according to the ACF consititution, it specifically states that (clause 1bvii) that "State" includes an Australian Territory . Thus contrary to the division of Australian federation into 6 states and 2 territories, under the ACF there are 8 "states"

    This of course raises another point - since "state" includes an "Australian Territory", people in Norfolk Island, Christmas island, AUstralian Antartic Territory and other Australian External territories, may be able to claim that they are "states" as well - and the equivalent of the 6 Australian states
    Last edited by chesslover; 15-02-2004 at 09:16 PM.
    Always do your Best

  14. #14
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    The ACF by-law for ACF tournament, under clause 2 specify the titles that shall be recognised by the ACF;

    2. The following titles shall be recognised. Junior titles ( " [junior] " )
    will be awarded in the categories of Junior, Under-16, Under-14, Under-12,
    Under-10, Girls, Girls Under-16, Girls Under-14, Girls U-12 and Girls U-10.
    1. Australian Champion
    2 a-j. Australian [junior] Champion
    3. Australian Womens Champion
    4. Australian Open Champion
    5. Australian STD Club Champion
    6. Australian Rapid Play Champion
    7. Australian Womens Rapid Play Champion
    8. Australian Open Rapid Play Champion
    9. Australian Womens Open Rapid Play Champion
    10 a-j. Australian [junior} Rapid Play Champion
    11. Australian Senior Champion
    12. Australian Lightning Champion
    13. Australian Womens Lightning Champion
    14. Australian Open Lightning Champion
    15. Australian Womens Open Lightning Champion
    16 a-j. Australian [junior] Lightning Champion
    17. Australian Chess Champion with a Disability
    18. Australian Match Play Champion
    19. Australian Secondary Schools Girls Teams Champions
    20. Australian Secondary Schools Open Teams Champions
    21. Australian Primary Schools Girls Teams Champions
    22. Australian Primary Schools Open Teams Champions."

    There does not seem to be any mention of the Aust Chess Team Champions, unless of course the by-laws have not been updated on the website

    Also only qualification seems to be specified in clause 3 - " Persons who are Australian citizens or who, in the opinion of the Council, are permanent residents of Australia shall be eligible to hold titles.However, in the case of an open tournament, all competitors shall be eligible to hold the title".
    Always do your Best

  15. #15
    CC International Master Kerry Stead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    That is not nice. I have the highest respect and admiration for you and you are taking me out of context.

    When you say that "chesslover ...Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? " that is WRONG as in W-R-O-N-G.
    Good to know that you are able to spell ...
    As for apparently taking you out of context, how am I doing so?
    To use a comparisson, would you say that Darryl Johansen was NOT the Australian Champion of 2000 because a number of leading players did not participate (eg: no Ian Rogers, no John-Paul Wallace, etc)? It was definitely not up to the 'usual' standard as far as Australian Championships are concerned (compare the field in Mingara to that in the most recent championships in Adelaide). I think you would consider him the legitimate champion because he played and won the tournament that the ACF said was the Australian Championship. It is likewise with the Australian Clubs Team Championship.
    What you seem to THINK the title means (correct me if I am W-R-O-N-G about this) is that the winning club/team is therefore the best chess club in Australia. This is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    There have only been 3 issues that I have had with initiatives - the ACF commisson proposal, the NECG appeal issue and the Sunshine coast team winner calling themsleves the offical "Aust club team champion". In fact in most of other ACF initiatives I have been fully supportive, and indeed in one of them (the best post 2003 prize) I have been most viciously attacked for supporting the ACF policy of having a prize for the best post 2003, supporting paul B in his decision to allow self nomination, and for supporting Paul B in allowing multiple self nominations
    Again, correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't the 3 initiatives that you mention the three most significant issues that have come from the ACF (or at least has had some ACF involvement) in recent years?? I would hardly compare the commission proposal (for example) with the best post prize, which seems to only involve around 20 people at the most, and to my mind has little significance to the furthering of Australian Chess (unlike the three initiatives you mentioned). To paraphrase from Pulp Fiction 'They're not in the same ballpark, heck they're not even the same game!'
    As a side issue, weren't you one of the few people who actually wanted to nominate one of your own posts, indeed multiple self-nominations? It would make you look rather hypocritical if you nominated yourself numerous times and then went against the policy to allow multiple self-nominations?

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    In the NECG matter - the only issue I had was with the lack of appeal over the selection. Everything else, including the admirable and hard working efforts in getting the sponsor, the website you setup, the selection panel, the whole concept I had thought was excellent and very good work.
    Thanks for the vote of confidence in regards to the squad generally (and in particular the efforts of Graeme Gardiner and Jenni Oliver in getting the sponsor onboard). However your handling of your objection to the 'no appeals' issue was done rather poorly, as almost everyone else on the BB who looked at your posts stated. Exactly what did you hope to achieve by doing what you did, apart from potentially losing the sponsor and thereby throwing away the many hours of hard work put in by volunteers for the betterment of Australian chess??

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    Similarly I agree with this whole social side issues, the need for a club based team tournament, the fact that this is a great initiative etc. All I am saying in this issue is that teh winner is not the best Aust chess club team, as strong clubs in Australia have not entered, and in any case as you pointed out members who played are not regular members of the club they played for.
    How do you propose to correct this problem? The clubs you use as examples, MCC and North Sydney, both had the opportunity to enter a team in the competition, however they chose not to. How does this change the facts? The winning team in 2003, as will be the case in 2004, can rightly call themselves the Australian Clubs Team Champion. Why? Because the ACF says so! Is it that hard to understand??
    There may not be quite the level of prestige as there would be had other strong clubs decided to send a team, however the title is still perfectly valid as a title. By all means say that the tournament could have been stronger (I don't think anyone would doubt that), however it was run, it was won, end of story.

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    To then state that this means that I am opposed to all initiatives is unfair and not just.
    Who is taking who out of context?? Did I say that you were opposed to all initiatives? I'll make it easy for you and quote what I said originally:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Stead
    chesslover ...
    Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with??
    Correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this simply a (possibly rhetorical) question? (The ??s are a big hint if you didn't already get it) It is not a statement. You attempted to challenge the question, and there is nothing wrong (as in W-R-O-N-G) with doing that, but try not to misinterpret what I am saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    PS - SInce you are so good at taking things out of context, do you want to join President Bush's team that is now trawling through Senator kerry's records in an effort to find items that they can use to attack him? Your legal skills will be very useful for them :p
    I'll choose to ignore this, for fear of taking it out of context.

    Can I suggest you heed the advice of an old saying:
    To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME!
    Please try to avoid assumptions in the future (best done by knowing and checking facts beforehand).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. paid CEO for Australian chess
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21-02-2006, 06:53 PM
  2. Preliminary Qualifier for Australian Masters
    By firegoat7 in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 23-05-2004, 11:52 PM
  3. Australian chess wheel reinvented again!
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 20-02-2004, 04:01 PM
  4. The role of clubs in chess
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-02-2004, 06:00 PM
  5. Australian National Events Reports
    By adelaideuni in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-02-2004, 03:01 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
  •