View Poll Results: Which Zonal should Australia be a part of?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Oceania (current arrangement)

    5 26.32%
  • SE Asia

    14 73.68%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441

    Rogers article in SUnday Herald about Zonals

    In sundays Sun Hearld article Rogers said that Johansen would be representing Australia in the World Champ KO in Libya

    He then went on to state that it was bad that Australia was part of the Oceania Zonals and not the SE Asia Zonals

    Is that right?????

    If being part of SE Asia means that the best Australian will not get an automatic qualifier to the World Champs, then it is a good thing that we are part of the weaker Oceania. That way we get an automativ qualifier

    Generally in world terms Australia's chess standing and Soccer standing are roughly the same. We are around 50 in world chess and throughout the 80s and most of 90s we were around 50 in world soccer. The goal of world soccer is to make the top 20 in the world.

    If you look at Soccer the move to move us to a tougher qualifier was greeted with shock and outrage. Instead of the Ocenaia qualifier in soccer going straight to the world cup, we now have yo play the 5th placed team from South America in addition to qualifying. This lack of qualification succes in the Soccer World Cup is one of the reasons why Soccer is in such a bad state here.

    If we are in the SE Asia Zonal in chess it will be much tougher for Aussies to qualify compared to now, where we dominate the Oceania chess scene.
    Always do your Best

  2. #2
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    1. Merge the two zones.

    2. There would be an initial setback however in the long run it would perhaps give our players better chances of obtaining GM or IM norms (or titles?) in a "merged" zonal.

    3. If we can graft ourselves onto the emerging Asian chess circuit then that saves us travelling to Europe or America to obtain norms or titles - outcomes which we, in comparison to the leading chess nations due to to our geographic isolation, find difficult to obtain.

    eclectic
    .

  3. #3
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    1,441
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    1. Merge the two zones.

    2. There would be an initial setback however in the long run it would perhaps give our players better chances of obtaining GM or IM norms (or titles?) in a "merged" zonal.

    3. If we can graft ourselves onto the emerging Asian chess circuit then that saves us travelling to Europe or America to obtain norms or titles - outcomes which we, in comparison to the leading chess nations due to to our geographic isolation, find difficult to obtain.

    eclectic
    but having to go through the SE Asia Zonal will be much harder for our players. And even in the future it will be harder however much we improve, for the competition is much tougher

    a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If we are part of Oceania barring the odd New Zealand upset, we should pretty much dominate and have an easier qualfying run
    Always do your Best

  4. #4
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by chesslover
    but having to go through the SE Asia Zonal will be much harder for our players. And even in the future it will be harder however much we improve, for the competition is much tougher
    If we want to have more Australian players becoming GM's etc then we're going to have to face that tough competition and be thoroughly prepared for it.

    eclectic
    .

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    I tend to agree with Ian Rogers actually.

    Having our own zonal means a virtually guaranteed knockout place for someone from Australia, well, nine times out of ten anyway. Which means that Australia's practically guaranteed a place in this 128-player KO event.

    Australia's playing strength does not really justify this ranking. Rogers himself is the only player in the zone who is close to (at times in) the world's top 128, and he tends not to compete in these events anyway.

    I just can't see what having an event where we can send a sacrificial lamb to be KOd in round 1 really does for Australian chess. (At least this has been the past experience, hopefully Darryl can pull an upset or at least take his opponent into overtime). It would be better if our players had to earn their place by beating stronger opposition so that an Australian even making the knockout became a significant and noteworthy acheivement.

    CL, your arguments are parochial. You're just pushing the "oh this system is good for us because we qualify easily" line. I don't think the soccer analogy is valid because the Soccer World Cup is so much more elite than the FIDE knockout, and because once you get into the World Cup you get to play matches against a few different teams not just one opponent.

    And, of course, you all know my feelings about the FIDE knockout even being considered a world championship at all.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    I will agree with Ian Rogers if it's a proposed merger - after all, Australia really *is* Oceania, so if the two zones were merged then I would be all for it, mostly for what reasons Kevin alluded to, the added competition and the chance for our top players to play among stronger opposition. It's all very well being a big fish in a small pond but there's a wider world out there for the taking.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Yes, I also agree with the argument to merge back with the stronger zone. The current Australian situation is pathetic. Our boys have to face tough opposition - the best in our region.

    AR

  8. #8
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    8
    the separate zonal did boost activity in the zone however.
    look at fiji after the zonal. they've had a few international tournaments since
    plus more FIDE-rated players. similarly with png with the activity there.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    I think the Oceania Zonal, while good in the short term for players who have gained titles, is not really that good an idea. This would not rule out Australian players. If you look at some of the players who qualified from Asia you see that Dableo qualified through winnning Zonal 3.2a and Kadhi who gained place from the Asian Championships. Both these players are certainly weaker than Johansen and most probably than most of our IMs. Having said this some of the other zones that have qualified players are not much stronger than Oceania and if Rogers played probably not stronger at all.
    Scott
    Last edited by Oepty; 07-04-2004 at 05:36 PM.

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    The other side to the argument that Australia gets a guaranteed place is that it is guaranteed only getting that one and no more. If the standard at the top improves we need to wait for FIDE to legislate for another place. And if a decent GM moves to NZ then Aust no longer has a place.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Ian, They might need a GM. I think players like Kushlako, Dive and Bjelobrk are capable of winning zonals and Puchen Wang looks like he is going to be a very strong player as well in a few years as well.
    Scott

  12. #12
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,058
    Scott, you are overrating the strength of the Australian/NZ players. Asian countries such as Philippines and Indonesia have many more strong up and coming players. Ronald Dableo is a strong 2426 and rising. The Philippines also have others such as IM Mark Paragua at 2529! These players are much more active than our players. Oceania players should compete in both Asia and Oceania. Also, it is time we hosted an Asian tournament again! Maybe approach government to support annual matches against these countries.
    Flying Jetsar Asia of course!

  13. #13
    CC resident nutcase Trent Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Picton, The Dilly, NSW
    Posts
    2,936
    I think the issue is, with chess and soccer, the quality of opposition.
    IMHO the more a chessplayer plays against higher rated opponents the better a player will be and the more chance that that player has to go to the next level or round.

    As in soccer the merging of the two zones (oceania and asia) would be best for australia. Sure we may not receive direct positions but the standard of our chess players will improve IMHO.
    GO THE DRAGONS!
    GO Western Sydney Wanderers!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski's signature
    God exists. Short and to the point.
    This is the reason I do not wade into religion threads.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Hello Brian. When I was talking about NZL players I was talking about the possibly winning a 3.2b Zonal, not a bigger zonal. Quite frankly I would be surprised if a NZL made the world championships in the near future. Wang probably has the talent to get there sometime in the future but might struggle to play enough as you say being in NZL. Like Australian juniors he will need to go overseas for quite a while to get the best he can out of himself.

    I would back Johansen to beat Dableo although I admit it is not certain. Johansen is definitely stronger that Kadhi would qualified through the Asian Championships. I am not saying an Australian would definitely qualify every time, just that they could qualify sometimes. As for Paragua, well I agree he is looking very strong and is stronger than Johansen.

    Scott

  15. #15
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    8
    in my mind, having our own zone is an opportunity for growth.
    we need more strong quality tournaments in the region not less.
    if we merge with 3.2b we could lose this potential (and zonal tournament).
    i'm sure only a few strong players (johansen, etc.) would go to a zonal
    in ho chi minh city or manila.

    i agree stronger competition is a plus and a good argument to merge.
    however why not build on what has been built so far.
    eg. maybe have a tournament/match between the zones eg. johansen-dableo or tournament similar to SEA Ch for south asia, etc.

    btw. dableo beat alot of strong gm's (eg. torre, antonio, paragua, wu) to win 3.2b and performed at 2611 for that tournament.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •