PDA

View Full Version : NSW Championship



Lucena
10-08-2004, 11:22 PM
Has anyone got info on the NSW Championship? I can't find any on the NSW website. Bill?

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2004, 11:28 PM
Has anyone got info on the NSW Championship? I can't find any on the NSW website. Bill?
Its in the calendar and there is a link to the details at
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nswca/04NSWChampsAd.htm

Lucena
10-08-2004, 11:52 PM
Its in the calendar and there is a link to the details at
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nswca/04NSWChampsAd.htm

Thank you. I guess I didn't think of looking there :doh: . Perhaps someone could put it in the "upcoming events" section as well.

Lucena
22-08-2004, 10:00 PM
Could someone explain why 3pm starting time? Bit unusual I thought.

Lucena
26-08-2004, 02:47 PM
Any takers? Bill? Anyone?

arosar
26-08-2004, 02:55 PM
You got a problem with the starting time mate?

AR

Lucena
26-08-2004, 03:04 PM
You got a problem with the starting time mate?

AR

It's bizarre that's all.

arosar
26-08-2004, 03:08 PM
Bizarre? How so?

AR

Kerry Stead
26-08-2004, 06:18 PM
Gareth,
The Australian Championships/Open typically start in the early-mid afternoon. From memory last years (and previous years) NSW Champs also started at a similar time (somewhere between 1-3pm). I wouldn't mind if it started a little earlier (say 2pm) as I'll have a bit more time to spare. As it is, I'll have to go pretty much from the tournament straight to work. Its just one of those things you have to make do with ...

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 08:25 PM
Could someone explain why 3pm starting time? Bit unusual I thought.
I believe it was at the request of the arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 08:30 PM
Gareth,
The Australian Championships/Open typically start in the early-mid afternoon. From memory last years (and previous years) NSW Champs also started at a similar time (somewhere between 1-3pm). I wouldn't mind if it started a little earlier (say 2pm) as I'll have a bit more time to spare. As it is, I'll have to go pretty much from the tournament straight to work. Its just one of those things you have to make do with ...
If I recall correctly over the past few years the rounds have started at 2pm and the venue booked from 1pm-10pm.

When I booked it at the start of the year I booked it from 10am-10pm. Once the starting time was decided then I changed the booking to 2pm-10pm.

Lucena
27-08-2004, 11:13 PM
I believe it was at the request of the arbiter.

fair enough-I guess you can't start the games without an arbiter. By the way, who is the arbiter?

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 11:23 PM
fair enough-I guess you can't start the games without an arbiter. By the way, who is the arbiter?
Charles Z.

alexmdc
04-09-2004, 10:05 PM
What's the start time on sunday? I remember it's later because of Father's day but I can't remember how much later.

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2004, 01:23 AM
What's the start time on sunday? I remember it's later because of Father's day but I can't remember how much later.
I believe 3.30 instead of 3pm.
Of course if you are wise you would call the arbiter and check well before then.

arosar
06-09-2004, 11:43 AM
The game Roberts - Fell was Fischer Random.

AR

pax
10-09-2004, 10:47 PM
What is the half point bye policy in the NSW champs?

Round 3 looks just ludicrous. Five half point byes and a full point bye in the open, 5 in the u2000 and 4 more in the u1600. Only 5 actual games being played in the open.

Why don't we all just stay home and have a 16 way tie for first?

Pax

samspade
10-09-2004, 10:58 PM
What is the half point bye policy in the NSW champs?

Round 3 looks just ludicrous. Five half point byes and a full point bye in the open, 5 in the u2000 and 4 more in the u1600. Only 5 actual games being played in the open.

Why don't we all just stay home and have a 16 way tie for first?

Pax

It's better than having them all postponed and mucking up the draw. I think this is the cue for Matthew to join this thread!

samspade
10-09-2004, 11:02 PM
The game Roberts - Fell was Fischer Random.

AR

Can you post it for us?

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2004, 11:10 PM
What is the half point bye policy in the NSW champs?

Round 3 looks just ludicrous. Five half point byes and a full point bye in the open, 5 in the u2000 and 4 more in the u1600. Only 5 actual games being played in the open.

Why don't we all just stay home and have a 16 way tie for first?

Pax
The policy is the same as in any NSWCA event.
No more than 2 half point byes and no half point byes in the last third of the event.

FWIW it looks like they are all juniors. I suspect they are all playing in the NSWJCL Schools Chess Challenge being held on the same day.

PHAT
11-09-2004, 11:48 AM
It's better than having them all postponed and mucking up the draw. I think this is the cue for Matthew to join this thread!

BYES? Booooooo Hisssssss.

This aptly described "ludicrous" fiasco, where less than half the Open games of the round are actually played, is a result of the NSWCA and the NSWJCL not meshing their calenders - or in Bill speak, there are no problems between the NSWCA and NSWJCL.

:hand:

Bill Gletsos
11-09-2004, 05:07 PM
BYES? Booooooo Hisssssss.

This aptly described "ludicrous" fiasco, where less than half the Open games of the round are actually played, is a result of the NSWCA and the NSWJCL not meshing their calenders - or in Bill speak, there are no problems between the NSWCA and NSWJCL.

:hand:
Just because you say it does not make it so.
In fact as I pointed out you have never spoken to either Richard G-H or Charles Z about this so all you are doind is indulging in your usual habit of post misinformation based only on your warped view.
There are no problems between the NSWCA and the NSWJCL.
As for clashes there are only so many Sundays in a year.

Paul S
13-09-2004, 10:16 AM
What is the half point bye policy in the NSW champs?

Round 3 looks just ludicrous. Five half point byes and a full point bye in the open, 5 in the u2000 and 4 more in the u1600. Only 5 actual games being played in the open.

Why don't we all just stay home and have a 16 way tie for first?

Pax

I have to agree with Pax.

There was actually 6 byes in the Open (1 x 1 point bye and 5 x 0.5 point byes) out of 16 players. 5 x 0.5 point byes in the U2000 out of 29 players. 4 x 0.5 point byes in the U1600 out of 26 players.

All up 15 byes (1 x 1 point and 14 x 0.5 point) out of 71 players. That is one bye for every 4.73 players!

As a player in this competition (U1600 division) I found it a bit demoralising when I looked at the NSWCA website late last week and saw that one in every 4.73 players had a bye. It made me think "why did I bother to play in the NSW Championships this year"? :( :doh:

I accept that over 9 rounds and with 71 players there will be occasions where some players cannot make it on a particular week. However, I cannot accept 15 byes out of 71 players. The NSWCA needs to take action on this matter, otherwise the NSW Championships will turn into a joke.

Obviously its too late for this year, but perhaps one solution could be awarding 0.4 points for a bye instead of 0.5 points for the 2005 NSW Championships? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 12:05 PM
I accept that over 9 rounds and with 71 players there will be occasions where some players cannot make it on a particular week. However, I cannot accept 15 byes out of 71 players. The NSWCA needs to take action on this matter, otherwise the NSW Championships will turn into a joke.
As I noted above this is due to the NSWJCL State Schools Challenge being held on the same day. There is no simple solution around this.


Obviously its too late for this year, but perhaps one solution could be awarding 0.4 points for a bye instead of 0.5 points for the 2005 NSW Championships? :hmm:
I cant see any possability of this happening.

ursogr8
13-09-2004, 12:24 PM
As I noted above this is due to the NSWJCL State Schools Challenge being held on the same day. There is no simple solution around this.




Bill
No simple solution maybe.
But there is always the possibility of the GW solution (applied to the VIC Championships). :uhoh:

starter

Garvinator
13-09-2004, 12:34 PM
But there is always the possibility of the GW solution (applied to the VIC Championships). :uhoh:

starter
except for the complexity of understanding the whole thing, i think the cv way of running their championships is a very good idea and worth trying in other states maybe :hmm:

Brian_Jones
13-09-2004, 01:09 PM
I've said this before but I'll say it again!

It is one thing to have mid-week club events run over several weeks but quite another to have NSWCA weekend events run over 9 rounds. People ask why don't more players enter the NSW State Championships? It is because 9 Sundays is too many. Weekends are precious and the current format is tired and out-of-date.

Yesterday clashed with the NSWJCL Schools Chess Challenge attended by many adults as well as the 500 juniors. It was also the Sydney Marathon!

Maybe we should just adopt a more modern format for the NSW State Championships?

alexmdc
13-09-2004, 01:11 PM
Yeah I wanted to do the bridge run yesterday :(

Brian_Jones
13-09-2004, 01:12 PM
Overhaul is better than overall!

arosar
13-09-2004, 01:22 PM
I personally share your view BJ. But I did take the time to canvass one or two players yesterday on this topic and they insist that the current system is preferable as it suits them perfectly. I guess it just depends on who you ask.

I think we should give this alternative system a go for at least one year and see what happens. Think of it as a 'test and learn' study. As you say, it's all about marketing!

AR

Lucena
13-09-2004, 01:25 PM
except for the complexity of understanding the whole thing, i think the cv way of running their championships is a very good idea and worth trying in other states maybe :hmm:

Refresh my memory how do they do it?

Trent Parker
13-09-2004, 01:35 PM
I've said this before but I'll say it again!

It is one thing to have mid-week club events run over several weeks but quite another to have NSWCA weekend events run over 9 rounds. People ask why don't more players enter the NSW State Championships? It is because 9 Sundays is too many. Weekends are precious and the current format is tired and out-of-date.

Yesterday clashed with the NSWJCL Schools Chess Challenge attended by many adults as well as the 500 juniors. It was also the Sydney Marathon!

Maybe we should just adopt a more modern format for the NSW State Championships?

I couldn't disagree more. I like the current format. In taking the NSW Champs weekdays I would have to have all my games at Campbelltown or otherwise i wouldn't be able to play in it due to my last train leaving Campbelltown at 10.30. I am sure that there is other people in a similar predicament. Also on weeknights people are tired after being at work/school and possibly takes away from the quality of chess.

I personally liked the way that the CoS was run but i had comments from a number of people (incl. Tony Keuning) that there was too much time between rounds.

So What do we Do?? Make it a weekender?? Thats laughable.
Make it over several days linked together?? It would have to clash with the Australian Champs / Open because i think you would find that no workier would be willing to give up their precious Holiday time to play chess... (although if i was working i would :D ) . School children would not be able to get off school.

So What is the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to the discussion about all the .5 point byes... So what??????
It is afterall ONLY ONE WEEK.

I know i might be stepping on some toes here but
Why not have the junior event on the saturday??

T.Parker

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 01:46 PM
In answer to the question on the NSWCA Survey regarding whether events like the City of Sydney or State Championship should be a) 1 round per week on sundays over 9 weeks, b) 2 rounds per week on sundays for 4 weeks and 1 round on Sunday (5 weeks total), c) Played over 3 weeks (1 game on saturday and 2 games on Sundays), d) the "Brian Jones Option" of 5 consecutive days (4 * 2 games and 1 * 1 game) which includes 3 working days.

Of the 51 repondents to this question the resulkts were:
a) 22
b) 18
c) 4
d) 7

Therefore 43% want the current format.
78% want it on Sundays over either 9 weeks or 5 weeks.

ursogr8
13-09-2004, 02:11 PM
Refresh my memory how do they do it?

In essence, games proceed at 3 or 4 venues, and on 2 or 3 days per week (incl. w/e).
As part of the entry form players fill in their preferred venues and their preferred days.
Gazza sits down and plays SNAP with first or second preferences where possible. He then pubishes the pairings for the whole tourney, by date, by venue.

Benefits are in practice
> the tournament is shorter duration...thus suiting those who have o/s trips (Darrel J) and exams.
>> participation goes up because the playing times/venues are closer to player-friendly.

starter

Paul S
13-09-2004, 02:36 PM
As I noted above this is due to the NSWJCL State Schools Challenge being held on the same day. There is no simple solution around this.

Regardless of the reason/s (BTW, some of the players who had round 3 byes like Zirdum and Harp are older than me!), 15 byes out of 71 players (1 bye for every 4.73 players is unacceptable).

What is more important/prestigious - the NSW Championsips or a one day Junior tournament? Where are your priorities, Bill?

Another thing. If there really is no other solution and this one-day Junior tournament has to be on the same Sunday as Round 3 of the NSW Championships, then why didn't the NSWCA (and NSWJCL) consider not having round 3 on 12/9/04? In other words have round 2 on 5/9/04 and round 3 on 19/9/04?

I can't speak for everyone in the NSW Championships, but I know that I would be a bit annoyed if (for example) I came second in the U1600 division with 7/9 (and played all 9 games) but was beaten by someone who scored 7.5/9 (but who only played 7 games and got 2 x 0.5 point byes).

Yesterday I could have taken the "easy option out" and not showed up for round 3. To cut a long story short I had lunch at my parents place and (because of the good meal) I ended up drinking too much wine and port as I had "temporarily forgot" that I was supposed to play in a chess match. I didn't want to run the risk of driving with a 0.08 to 0.10 alcohol reading. Yet rather than not show up (and inconvenience my opponent) I took a taxi to Ryde-Eastwood ($38 including tip) and afterwards got the train to Strathfield and got a taxi home from there (another $22 including tip). All up around $60 on taxi fares. Now, I'm not trying to make myself out to be some sort of a "chess hero", but at the same time I think there are too many "soft" byes being taken. I could easily take a 0.5 point bye next week as I am going to a concert next Sunday (which starts at 7.15pm at Sydney Entertainment Centre 19/9/04), but instead I will be there for Round 4 (and if need be make my moves "quicker than normal" - hopefully my Round 4 game won't go for too long!).


I cant see any possability of this happening.

I'll admit that my idea of having a 0.4 point bye (instead of a 0.5 point bye) is less than ideal (and was a suggestion "off the top of my head").

Yet at the same time, something needs to be done to discourage the taking of 0.5 point byes and not penalise/discourage the players who actually bother to show up to play chess!

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 03:06 PM
Regardless of the reason/s (BTW, some of the players who had round 3 byes like Zirdum and Harp are older than me!), 15 byes out of 71 players (1 bye for every 4.73 players is unacceptable).
The NSWCA policy on half point byes has been in place for a number of years now. It was reconfirmed at a NSWCA Council meeting earlier this year.


What is more important/prestigious - the NSW Championsips or a one day Junior tournament? Where are your priorities, Bill?
My priorites like those of the NSWCA council are with the State Championship.
However there will be clashes and they cannot be helped.


Another thing. If there really is no other solution and this one-day Junior tournament has to be on the same Sunday as Round 3 of the NSW Championships, then why didn't the NSWCA (and NSWJCL) consider not having round 3 on 12/9/04? In other words have round 2 on 5/9/04 and round 3 on 19/9/04?
Your proposed solution is really no solution at all and makes absolutely no difference.
All that would happeen is that the last round would then clash with the Gosford Open on the 7th November. That couldnt move because the following weekend is the Coffs Harbour Open and the weekend after that is the NSW November weekender. The Sunday after that is the NSW Lightning and AGM. By tnow we are into December but even then the sunday after the AGM would clash with the Tuggeranong Vikings in the ACT and the Country Teams event at Gosford.


I can't speak for everyone in the NSW Championships, but I know that I would be a bit annoyed if (for example) I came second in the U1600 division with 7/9 (and played all 9 games) but was beaten by someone who scored 7.5/9 (but who only played 7 games and got 2 x 0.5 point byes).
Although possible it would be I would think highly improbable. Even so their 6.5 from 7 would appear more meritorious than your hypothetical 7/9.


Yesterday I could have taken the "easy option out" and not showed up for round 3. To cut a long story short I had lunch at my parents place and (because of the good meal) I ended up drinking too much wine and port as I had "temporarily forgot" that I was supposed to play in a chess match. I didn't want to run the risk of driving with a 0.08 to 0.10 alcohol reading. Yet rather than not show up (and inconvenience my opponent) I took a taxi to Ryde-Eastwood ($38 including tip) and afterwards got the train to Strathfield and got a taxi home from there (another $22 including tip). All up around $60 on taxi fares. Now, I'm not trying to make myself out to be some sort of a "chess hero", but at the same time I think there are too many "soft" byes being taken. I could easily take a 0.5 point bye next week as I am going to a concert next Sunday (which starts at 7.15pm at Sydney Entertainment Centre 19/9/04), but instead I will be there for Round 4 (and if need be make my moves "quicker than normal" - hopefully my Round 4 game won't go for too long!).
Thats all well and good but the byes taken last weekend were no so the players could just up and do something else, they were off playing in a junior event.
Allowing two half point byes in the first 6 rounds allows for flexability amongst the players without forcing a situation where players quite likely would not even enter if there were no half point byes and they were unavoidably unable to attend for 1 or 2 rounds.
By not allowing except in extreme circumstances and then only with the agreement of the NSWCA Council, half point byes in the final three rounds this virtually eliminates any possible manipulation of the final standings.



Yet at the same time, something needs to be done to discourage the taking of 0.5 point byes and not penalise/discourage the players who actually bother to show up to play chess!
As I said in the case at hand as far as I am aware all the half point byes were for juniors playiing in the schools events. Both I and no doubt the NSWCA Council see that as entirely reasonable under the circumstances.

arosar
13-09-2004, 03:11 PM
Of the 51 repondents to this question the resulkts were:
a) 22
b) 18
c) 4
d) 7

Therefore 43% want the current format.
78% want it on Sundays over either 9 weeks or 5 weeks.

51 respondents is hardly satisfactory. Still, I think we can glean from the data that more than half certainly want a faster tournament. In that case - I think I would select 'b' as my second choice (after 'd').

Actually Bill, if you run another survey - you should use a rank order scale for this question rather than a single choice only.

AR

Chess Dad
13-09-2004, 03:11 PM
What is more important/prestigious - the NSW Championsips or a one day Junior tournament? Where are your priorities, Bill?



Paul,

From the point of view of promoting Junior Chess in schools I think the Junior Schools teams tournament is very important. It is one of the major school tournaments for the year.

It demonstrates the tremendous commitment by a large number of schools to the development of chess and also introduces lots of new children (and parents) to tournament chess.

I did the scoring for the Primary section of the tournament where there were 78 teams of three. An amazing number of the children and parents had never been to a tournament before and did not know what was going on. By the end of the day they all had a greater understanding, appreciation and interest in tournaments.

It is a great way to introduce potential new players and parents.

The secondary section was not as large but still had roughly 30 teams playing.

The fact that there was such a large number of Juniors playing in the the NSW Championships who chose to play for their school shows how important they feel the tournament was.

It is also important that these juniors return some of the commitment and support shown by their school by ensuring that they have the best team available for this tournament, otherwise you run the risk of the schools losing interest.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 03:19 PM
51 respondents is hardly satisfactory.
You cannot force people to fill in surveys.


Still, I think we can glean from the data that more than half certainly want a faster tournament. In that case - I think I would select 'b' as my second choice (after 'd').

Actually Bill, if you run another survey - you should use a rank order scale for this question rather than a single choice only.

AR
Yes, well the 2 rounds a day didnt seem to go to well in the COS at the start of the year, but I suspect there were a numbeer of other issues at play there like the lack of at least an U1700 division.

Paul S
13-09-2004, 03:31 PM
The NSWCA policy on half point byes has been in place for a number of years now. It was reconfirmed at a NSWCA Council meeting earlier this year.

Maybe so. However, it doesn't hurt to review these things, especially in light of 15/71 players taking byes for round 3.


My priorites like those of the NSWCA council are with the State Championship.
However there will be clashes and they cannot be helped.
Your proposed solution is really no solution at all and makes absolutely no difference.
All that would happeen is that the last round would then clash with the Gosford Open on the 7th November. That couldnt move because the following weekend is the Coffs Harbour Open and the weekend after that is the NSW November weekender. The Sunday after that is the NSW Lightning and AGM. By tnow we are into December but even then the sunday after the AGM would clash with the Tuggeranong Vikings in the ACT and the Country Teams event at Gosford.

With better planning (and co-operation between various organisations) they can be overcome, especially in light of 15/71 players taking byes for round 3.

Perhaps have the State Championships over 7 rounds instead of 9? After all, if 7 rounds is good enough for the Doeberl, why not for the NSW State Championships?


Although possible it would be I would think highly improbable. Even so their 6.5 from 7 would appear more meritorious than your hypothetical 7/9.


Yes, it is unlikely that I would win the U1600 division. Still, you never know - I can beat anyone U1600! Of course, the difficulty is in sustaining it over 9 rounds! Also, while I often beat players 1500-1600 I just as often lose to players of around 1300-1400 (which is why my September 2004 rating is 1468).



Thats all well and good but the byes taken last weekend were no so the players could just up and do something else, they were off playing in a junior event.
Allowing two half point byes in the first 6 rounds allows for flexability amongst the players without forcing a situation where players quite likely would not even enter if there were no half point byes and they were unavoidably unable to attend for 1 or 2 rounds.
By not allowing except in extreme circumstances and then only with the agreement of the NSWCA Council, half point byes in the final three rounds this virtually eliminates any possible manipulation of the final standings.

As I said in the case at hand as far as I am aware all the half point byes were for juniors playiing in the schools events. Both I and no doubt the NSWCA Council see that as entirely reasonable under the circumstances.
Not all players were playing in a junior event.

Anyway, like I said I think the NSWCA should review this situation.

Regardless of what the reasons are, it is NOT good to have 15/71 players take byes! Obviously what is done is done. However, the NSWCA (and NSWJCL) should take steps to ensure that next year's NSW Championship does not have any rounds wherby 15/71 players take a bye!

Paul S
13-09-2004, 03:34 PM
You cannot force people to fill in surveys.

Very true!


Yes, well the 2 rounds a day didnt seem to go to well in the COS at the start of the year, but I suspect there were a numbeer of other issues at play there like the lack of at least an U1700 division.

I was disappointed that Bill's good friend ;) :P , Matthew Sweeney did NOT play in the 2004 COS after all his carrying on (whingeing) about "must have 2 rounds per day for COS and State Championships" on the BB last year!

Paul S
13-09-2004, 03:43 PM
Paul,

From the point of view of promoting Junior Chess in schools I think the Junior Schools teams tournament is very important. It is one of the major school tournaments for the year.

It demonstrates the tremendous commitment by a large number of schools to the development of chess and also introduces lots of new children (and parents) to tournament chess.

I did the scoring for the Primary section of the tournament where there were 78 teams of three. An amazing number of the children and parents had never been to a tournament before and did not know what was going on. By the end of the day they all had a greater understanding, appreciation and interest in tournaments.

It is a great way to introduce potential new players and parents.

The secondary section was not as large but still had roughly 30 teams playing.

The fact that there was such a large number of Juniors playing in the the NSW Championships who chose to play for their school shows how important they feel the tournament was.

It is also important that these juniors return some of the commitment and support shown by their school by ensuring that they have the best team available for this tournament, otherwise you run the risk of the schools losing interest.

Hi John

I'm sure is is an important event, and in general I agree with the points you raise (and I think such an event is good for chess).

However, IMHO things could/should have been better structured between the NSWCA and NSWJCL with regards to this competition (eg maybe the NSW Champs could have had a one week break on 12/9/04 to accommodate this competition).

Like I said earlier it does nothing for the prestige of the NSW Championships if 15/71 players take a bye during one of the rounds!

Cheers

Paul

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 03:58 PM
Maybe so. However, it doesn't hurt to review these things, especially in light of 15/71 players taking byes for round 3.
You can repeat the 15/71 figure as much as you like.
Its not going to change the situation.
The State Championship is always going to clash with the Schools event.


With better planning (and co-operation between various organisations) they can be overcome, especially in light of 15/71 players taking byes for round 3.
Any actual workable suggestion on how it might be overcome.

BTW it is completely misleading to keep quoting 15/71 as it is abundantly clear that Zirdum got the 1 point bye due to there being an odd number of players remaining after the half point byes were taken out. So the real number of requested byes was 14. Of these 11 weer juniors playing in the Schools leaving 3 adults who requested byes.


Perhaps have the State Championships over 7 rounds instead of 9? After all, if 7 rounds is good enough for the Doeberl, why not for the NSW State Championships?
Thats because that is all they can fit in in the time available.


Not all players were playing in a junior event.
You are correct. I should have said all the juniors. After all it should be noted that 4 of the 5 in the open were juniors with only Harp being an adult, all 5 in the U2000 are juniors and 2 of the 4 in the U1600 are juniors with Steinitz and I think Drewett being adults.


Anyway, like I said I think the NSWCA should review this situation.

Regardless of what the reasons are, it is NOT good to have 15/71 players take byes! Obviously what is done is done. However, the NSWCA (and NSWJCL) should take steps to ensure that next year's NSW Championship does not have any rounds wherby 15/71 players take a bye!
As I said given the circumstances the 14/71 having byes is not a major issue especially when you consider that 11 of the 14 were juniors competing in the Schools event. That leaves 3 adults who had half point byes for other reasons.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 04:02 PM
However, IMHO things could/should have been better structured between the NSWCA and NSWJCL with regards to this competition (eg maybe the NSW Champs could have had a one week break on 12/9/04 to accommodate this competition).
That answer is no answer at all as you are completely overlooking that there are no spare weeks following the 12/09/04 if you take a break on that weekend.

Paul S
13-09-2004, 04:05 PM
Any actual workable suggestion on how it might be overcome.



That answer is no answer at all as you are completely overlooking that there are no spare weeks following the 12/09/04 if you take a break on that weekend.

Then maybe have 7 rounds instead of 9?

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 04:15 PM
Then maybe have 7 rounds instead of 9?
Its the State Chjampionship not some weekender.

arosar
13-09-2004, 04:16 PM
Yo Paulie . . . your proposed solution is not acceptable mate? How can you speak of an elite tournament and reduce the number of rounds to 7? Totally unacceptable.

Hey Paulie, on another note, is the Canterbury club champs happening soon? You still have my email addy right?

AR

Brian_Jones
13-09-2004, 04:37 PM
If this event really is the prestigious NSW State Championship (object to determine the NSW State Champion), why not ask the top 12-16 players in the rating list what format they would like to play the Championship? Even ask our GMs and IMs for their preferences/requirements?

Paul S
13-09-2004, 04:37 PM
Its the State Chjampionship not some weekender.

It isn't a weekender if it goes for 7 weeks (7 separate Sundays)! ;) :P :owned:

Paul S
13-09-2004, 04:50 PM
Yo Paulie . . . your proposed solution is not acceptable mate? How can you speak of an elite tournament and reduce the number of rounds to 7? Totally unacceptable.
AR

I just floated it as an idea to try help overcome the apparent "clashing" of events.

As they say, when one problem is fixed another one is created!

However, I think 7 rounds for the NSW Championships should be considered by the NSWCA, that's all! If they look into the benefits of having 7 rounds (eg lack of clashing tournaments) versus the benefits of having 9 rounds (prestige, better reliability in the final results etc) and come up with the conclusion that 9 rounds is better than 7, then I can live with that! I just think that this aspect should be looked into and weighed up by NSWCA Council.


Hey Paulie, on another note, is the Canterbury club champs happening soon? You still have my email addy right?
AR

The Club Champs finshed in May! However, the 7 round "Canterbury Open" starts on Monday 18/10/04.

Unfortunately I no longer have your email address! I had a problem with my work email about 8 months ago whereby all my email addresses were erased and I had to start from scratch! Send me an email and I will add your email address to my email address list and keep you informed of any relevant chess matters.

PHAT
13-09-2004, 04:57 PM
I can't speak for everyone in the NSW Championships, but I know that I would be a bit annoyed if (for example) I came second in the U1600 division with 7/9 (and played all 9 games) but was beaten by someone who scored 7.5/9 (but who only played 7 games and got 2 x 0.5 point byes).

Yesterday I could have taken the "easy option out" and not showed up for round 3. To cut a long story short ...

I agree, Paul. This isn't a country weekender, it is a Championship.

Byes should not be awarded upon any circumstances. All other events are simply bad luck. Car accident? Tough. Train was late? Tough. I am sick? Tough. I want to play in some other event? Tough. Wife is in labour? Tough. Life ain't fair? Tough.

Play or forfeit.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 04:59 PM
If this event really is the prestigious NSW State Championship (object to determine the NSW State Champion), why not ask the top 12-16 players in the rating list what format they would like to play the Championship? Even ask our GMs and IMs for their preferences/requirements?
I'm fairly certain Ralph did this and they would prefer a 10 player round robin played one game per week. Thats what led to his NSW Masters idea.
In fact Ralph wanted to do the same thing for this years State championship.
However after Ralph's untimely passing the NSWCA Council decided to revert back to the Swiss format.

Of course if you got a lot of strong playesr you would need to change the format from a round robin to a Swiss anyway still run at the rate of one game per week.

Hmm, now I wonder what format that reminds me of.

Garvinator
13-09-2004, 04:59 PM
nice to see the cv alternative format got a nice fair hearing, not. Wouldnt want a solution that could solve all your problems, that would be too easy :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 05:00 PM
I agree, Paul. This isn't a country weekender, it is a Championship.

Byes should not be awarded upon any circumstances. All other events are simply bad luck. Car accident? Tough. Train was late? Tough. I am sick? Tough. I want to play in some other event? Tough. Wife is in labour? Tough. Life ain't fair? Tough.

Play or forfeit.
Your opinion, who cares. Tough. :lol:

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Yo Paulie . . . your proposed solution is not acceptable mate? How can you speak of an elite tournament and reduce the number of rounds to 7? Totally unacceptable.
Yeah he should perhaps consider it fortunate that neither it or the City of Sydney are still 11 rounds like they were for many years or even 13 rounds prior to that.

arosar
13-09-2004, 05:14 PM
In essence, games proceed at 3 or 4 venues, and on 2 or 3 days per week (incl. w/e).
As part of the entry form players fill in their preferred venues and their preferred days.
Gazza sits down and plays SNAP with first or second preferences where possible. He then pubishes the pairings for the whole tourney, by date, by venue.

Benefits are in practice
> the tournament is shorter duration...thus suiting those who have o/s trips (Darrel J) and exams.
>> participation goes up because the playing times/venues are closer to player-friendly.

starter

So what's the Vic Ch - an RR only, multidivisional open like NSW's or mix - RR plus open lower divisions?

AR

ursogr8
13-09-2004, 05:25 PM
nice to see the cv alternative format got a nice fair hearing, not. Wouldnt want a solution that could solve all your problems, that would be too easy :whistle:

gg''

The afternoon punters club thought of running a sweepstakes on how many NIMBY (response) posts would occur. It would have been a fizzer as there have been none. :eek:

starter

peanbrain
13-09-2004, 05:30 PM
Your opinion, who cares. Tough. :lol:

:lol: :owned: :whistle:

ursogr8
13-09-2004, 05:39 PM
So what's the Vic Ch - an RR only, multidivisional open like NSW's or mix - RR plus open lower divisions?

AR

Amiel
I would like to say read the web-site, but sadly it is not up to date and Gazza did not respond to my prod last Friday.

From what I observed last week
>>>RR plus open lower divisions.

But maybe RR all divisions. I will check tomorrow night.

starter

eclectic
13-09-2004, 06:12 PM
Amiel
I would like to say read the web-site, but sadly it is not up to date and Gazza did not respond to my prod last Friday.

From what I observed last week
>>>RR plus open lower divisions.

But maybe RR all divisions. I will check tomorrow night.

starter

it's RR all divisions except lowest (qual no 2) which is DRR due to lack of numbers

eclectic

Lucena
13-09-2004, 09:59 PM
51 respondents is hardly satisfactory.

I disagree. Knowing the laziness of most players, I reckon 51 is pretty reasonable. I would have expected 30 maximum!

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 10:09 PM
I disagree. Knowing the laziness of most players, I reckon 51 is pretty reasonable. I would have expected 30 maximum!
Also generally the ones most likely to reply are those unhappy with the status quo.

Brian_Jones
14-09-2004, 10:32 AM
The problem with surveys is it depends what questions are asked and how.

I bet that the chess professionals such as Ian Rogers and Gary Lane did not say that they prefer a 10 week event for the NSW Championships. In fact anybody that travels on business would not choose a 10 week event as they cannot be sure to be available for all 10 weeks.

If you ask the question in the right way, I will wager that the top players prefer an all-play-all with appearance money such as the Australian Masters or any other normal FIDE-rated event anywhere in the world. You start one day and finish a week or two later with a winner and gain/loss of points.

Maybe the NSW "state championship" is not for the top players - it is just another boring week in week out event?

Trent Parker
14-09-2004, 10:36 AM
Well paul. I'm happy i played last weekend. It gave me something to do. I know that juniors should be catered for but why should adults who want to play chess be disadvantaged because there is a junior tournament on????

BTW I heard that Joel Harp requested a half point bye for last sunday because he was out of the country.

pax
14-09-2004, 01:27 PM
The problem with surveys is it depends what questions are asked and how.

I bet that the chess professionals such as Ian Rogers and Gary Lane did not say that they prefer a 10 week event for the NSW Championships. In fact anybody that travels on business would not choose a 10 week event as they cannot be sure to be available for all 10 weeks.


It seems a little dubious to make the NSW Championships cater to a player who is extremely unlikely to play in it even if the format was to his preferences. We all know Ian has bigger fish to fry than the NSW Champs.

Unfortunately, Australia has too few chess professionals for the top tournaments all to be professional in format. Most players have normal day jobs with normal annual leave which they might use to play in the Australian Championships once a year. A lower rung event like the NSWCC is unlikely to attract players if they are required to take time off, unless the likely payoff compensates for leave without pay.

Pax

Brian_Jones
14-09-2004, 02:23 PM
Jonathan, maybe in WA you cannot see that there are heaps of players over here that are keen to play in quality events. Some are employed but will take the time off work where the event is attractive. Others are engaged in chess full-time. (This includes not only old men like myself but also young chess coaches and students.).

I would estimate that there are 20 chess professionals in NSW and a similar number of strong students who are able to play in quality events!

pax
14-09-2004, 03:20 PM
Jonathan, maybe in WA you cannot see that there are heaps of players over here that are keen to play in quality events. Some are employed but will take the time off work where the event is attractive. Others are engaged in chess full-time. (This includes not only old men like myself but also young chess coaches and students.).

I would estimate that there are 20 chess professionals in NSW and a similar number of strong students who are able to play in quality events!

I'll ignore the rude comment about WA (actually, I live in NSW now).

A quality chess event is about far more than how often you play. In the end it principally boils down to money. If you have a great sponsorship deal, you can offer the appearance money and prizemoney that will make it attractive for players to take time off to play. Without sponsorship, there is basically no option but to play evenings and weekends.

Maybe you can make a case that someone needs to work harder to secure sponsorship, but seriously that's tough in Australia today. Europe has the advantage of quite a lot of individuals and companies who are philanthropic about chess.

Pax

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Maybe you can make a case that someone needs to work harder to secure sponsorship, but seriously that's tough in Australia today. Europe has the advantage of quite a lot of individuals and companies who are philanthropic about chess.

Pax
we currently have a sponsor who is willing to commit long term possibly, they are the main sponsor for the mt buller tournaments, but still a few vested interest groups seemed determine to wreck this deal and keep australian chess in the poor house.

arosar
14-09-2004, 04:05 PM
we currently have a sponsor who is willing to commit long term possibly, they are the main sponsor for the mt buller tournaments, but still a few vested interest groups seemed determine to wreck this deal and keep australian chess in the poor house.

Get this into your head gray: nobody's trying to wreck the deal. It's just your imagination. How could anyone wreck the deal - by what method exactly?

Now since you opened the door, what exactly are the terms of this so called long term ('possibly') deal?

AR

Brian_Jones
14-09-2004, 04:31 PM
Lack of sponsorship is not really the problem. There are heaps of sponsors out there. But where are the professional administrators who can talk sensibly to the sponsors? Answer - they are all taking time out at present. Maybe Paul Sike's thread needs to examine in more depth?

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Get this into your head gray: nobody's trying to wreck the deal. It's just your imagination. How could anyone wreck the deal - by what method exactly?

Now since you opened the door, what exactly are the terms of this so called long term ('possibly') deal?

AR
your one of them you clown :evil:

arosar
14-09-2004, 05:17 PM
your one of them you clown :evil:

Control yourself gray. Don't have another emotional breakdown.

No one's trying to wreck the deal gray. How could anyone wreck the deal? Or is the whole agreement so flimsy that a few posts will do? Sounds like you don't have much faith.

Are you having doubts about Mt-nowhere's success my friend?

AR

Rincewind
14-09-2004, 05:20 PM
Are you having doubts about Mt-nowhere's success my friend?

Success if a relative term. Are we comparing it with your huge body of work in the field of chess administration?

arosar
14-09-2004, 05:32 PM
Are you a mouthpiece for the event Bazza mate or a mouthpiece for the mouthpiece?

AR

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 05:54 PM
Success if a relative term. Are we comparing it with your huge body of work in the field of chess administration?
:lol: :lol: :whistle:

ursogr8
14-09-2004, 09:45 PM
we currently have a sponsor who is willing to commit long term possibly, they are the main sponsor for the mt buller tournaments, but still a few vested interest groups seemed determine to wreck this deal and keep australian chess in the poor house.

gg''

Long term sponsorship would certainly be a top agenda item that could benefit from be discussed on the BB. I for one would like to ask a few questions; not with malice or destructive intent, but because I like to participate in these sort of discussions. But gg'', reading your posts on the Mt B. deal is like handling egg-shells mate. You seem to flare up at any provocation; particularly by Amiel, but also others. So, I have pulled my head in on this topic.
Of course I wish your Committee well. You have embarked on a venture that I would have avoided, but that not to say I wish you any failure.
Perhaps after January 2005, when you have a success to trumpet, then we can debate the next issues to do with this form of sponsorship of chess.

starter

Rincewind
14-09-2004, 10:12 PM
Are you a mouthpiece for the event Bazza mate or a mouthpiece for the mouthpiece?

I asked my question first.

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 10:42 PM
Long term sponsorship would certainly be a top agenda item that could benefit from be discussed on the BB. i agree it would be great, but our committee has basically come to the conclusion that any time we disclose anything, trolls come out before any real decent discussion and ruin it for all. The moderators dont help by deleting the trolls posts. Therefore we just dont post anything until it is completely locked in and confirmed. George doesnt bother reading here for the troll reason. Regarding the sponsorship amounts and details, they will be detailed to everyone at the national conference. You know the drill for the rest.


I for one would like to ask a few questions; not with malice or destructive intent, but because I like to participate in these sort of discussions. But gg'', reading your posts on the Mt B. deal is like handling egg-shells mate. You seem to flare up at any provocation; particularly by Amiel, but also others. you are right and i do, but i dont apologise for it.


So, I have pulled my head in on this topic.
Of course I wish your Committee well. You have embarked on a venture that I would have avoided, but that not to say I wish you any failure.
Perhaps after January 2005, when you have a success to trumpet, then we can debate the next issues to do with this form of sponsorship of chess.maybe we can.

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 10:43 PM
moderators might have to move this to a new thread or to the already created thread.

Paul S
14-09-2004, 10:57 PM
:hmm: I'm not sure what the last few posts about Mt Buller have to do with the NSW Championships (NB there is a whole forum devoted to Mt Buller!), but I'll try to get things back on track..........


Its not going to change the situation.
The State Championship is always going to clash with the Schools event.


Why does it have to be this way? I have just had a look at the NSWJCL website and it appears that the Schools event only goes for one day. So, why not hold the Schools event on a Saturday instead of Sunday? Problem fixed - no more NSW State Championship rounds with 15/71 players taking a bye! All it requires is for the NSWCA and NSWJCL to communicate with each other!


Any actual workable suggestion on how it might be overcome.


See above! :owned:

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 11:00 PM
:hmm: I'm not sure what the last few posts about Mt Buller have to do with the NSW Championships (NB there is a whole forum devoted to Mt Buller!), but I'll try to get things back on track..........
i made a comment about sponsorships and it went from there. I just posted that perhaps the moderators need to move the sponsorship talk that is about buller to mt buller thread.

Also though, it does relate to here in parts in regards to sponsorship levels. Maybe a new thread needs to be created.

Paul S
14-09-2004, 11:05 PM
i made a comment about sponsorships and it went from there. I just posted that perhaps the moderators need to move the sponsorship talk that is about buller to mt buller thread.

Also though, it does relate to here in parts in regards to sponsorship levels. Maybe a new thread needs to be created.

Don't get too fussed about it, Garvin. :lol: Thread drift often happens in forums like this. At least your thread drift is FAR more constructive than the tiresome Matt versus Bill "thread drift" (ie slanging matches :rolleyes: )!

PHAT
14-09-2004, 11:07 PM
All it requires is for the NSWCA and NSWJCL to communicate with each other!


As BG says, the two orgs are virtually married. That means the woodies display a veneer of mohogony.

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2004, 11:40 PM
Why does it have to be this way? I have just had a look at the NSWJCL website and it appears that the Schools event only goes for one day. So, why not hold the Schools event on a Saturday instead of Sunday? Problem fixed - no more NSW State Championship rounds with 15/71 players taking a bye! All it requires is for the NSWCA and NSWJCL to communicate with each other!
It would appear you dont know too much about kids and their activities. ;)
I remember raising this issue s couplr of years back and was informed that Saturdays are no good because there are too many kids sports activities run on Saturdays.


See above! :owned:
Not even close to being :owned:

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2004, 11:43 PM
As BG says, the two orgs are virtually married. That means the woodies display a veneer of mohogony.
As usual you have no actual clue what you are talking about and comments like that just demonstrate what a complete fool you are.

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 11:44 PM
It would appear you dont know too much about kids and their activities. ;)
I remember raising this issue s couplr of years back and was informed that Saturdays are no good because there are too many kids sports activities run on Saturdays.
dumb question time, is it possible to have a tenth sunday during the tournament for postponed games or something?

Rincewind
14-09-2004, 11:46 PM
dumb question time, is it possible to have a tenth sunday during the tournament for postponed games or something?

Isn't it a swiss?

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 11:48 PM
Isn't it a swiss?
ok then, if it is a swiss then that is not possible, hence dumb question time :P

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2004, 11:53 PM
dumb question time, is it possible to have a tenth sunday during the tournament for postponed games or something?
You cant have been paying too much attention gg.
As I pointed out to Paul S there is no spare Sunday where we would not clash with some other tournament.

Paul S
14-09-2004, 11:53 PM
It would appear you dont know too much about kids and their activities. ;)


There is some truth in that. At any rate being a bachelor I'll admit that I don't know as much about kids and their activities as someone who is married and has kids.

Nonetheless, regardless of this I still think the NSWCA can do more to avoid large numbers of byes in the NSW Championships!

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2004, 11:56 PM
There is some truth in that. At any rate being a bachelor I'll admit that I don't know as much about kids and their activities as someone who is married and has kids.
I'm in the same boat as you. ;)
However, I probably have just conversed more with NSWJCL officials than you.


Nonetheless, regardless of this I still think the NSWCA can do more to avoid large numbers of byes in the NSW Championships!
If there was a simple answer we would have implemented it by now. ;)

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 11:57 PM
You cant have been paying too much attention gg.
As I pointed out to Paul S there is no spare Sunday where we would not clash with some other tournament.
i have been paying attention, i said dumb suggestion time :whistle: meaning that i didnt think it would work, just suggested it anyway.

Bill Gletsos
14-09-2004, 11:59 PM
i have been paying attention, i said dumb suggestion time :whistle: meaning that i didnt think it would work, just suggested it anyway.
Then you disappoint me gg. ;)
That was the sort of question I would have expected from that fool Sweeney.
Totally impracticle and unworkable.

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 12:03 AM
Then you disappoint me gg. ;)
That was the sort of question I would have expected from that fool Sweeney.
Totally impracticle and unworkable.
your disappointment and bruce's forgiveness, not a good night for me :P . Actually i have been following this thread closely as we up here have no real regular weekend programs for tournaments, just the odd tournament here and there. trying to get more ideas.

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 12:05 AM
Then you disappoint me gg. ;)
That was the sort of question I would have expected from that fool Sweeney.
Totally impracticle and unworkable.
also at least i realised it was a dumb suggestion before suggesting it :lol: ;)

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2004, 12:08 AM
also at least i realised it was a dumb suggestion before suggesting it :lol: ;)
Yes, that definitely counted in your favour. ;)

ursogr8
15-09-2004, 03:19 PM
So what's the Vic Ch - an RR only, multidivisional open like NSW's or mix - RR plus open lower divisions?

AR

hi Amiel

I now have more detail on the VIC Championship.
The top division has 11 players and is a round-robin.
Play is spread over 17 evenings and 4 venues.

And get this (Matt, you reading?) no byes, no byes, no byes,. Not bad for a field that has an odd number of players.

Player ratings are
2389, 2023, 2343, 2483, 1947, 2042, 2150, 2331, 2093, 2169, 1970.


starter

pax
15-09-2004, 03:37 PM
It would appear you dont know too much about kids and their activities. ;)
I remember raising this issue s couplr of years back and was informed that Saturdays are no good because there are too many kids sports activities run on Saturdays.

I wonder why chess is automatically a lower priority. The presumption here seems to be that weekly cricket/football/basketball fixtures will automatically take precedence over a yearly (termly?) schools chess event. Maybe it's true. Maybe if you put it on a Saturday, no one will come. A by product of our physical sport obsessed country that mental sports rank lower by default.

What about putting the NSWCC on a Saturday (if not the whole event, then just that week). Was that considered?

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 03:49 PM
I wonder why chess is automatically a lower priority. The presumption here seems to be that weekly cricket/football/basketball fixtures will automatically take precedence over a yearly (termly?) schools chess event. Maybe it's true. Maybe if you put it on a Saturday, no one will come. A by product of our physical sport obsessed country that mental sports rank lower by default.
part of the issue i think is that the other sport events are school run and are representing the school, maybe. Therefore the student is duty bound to play in the team, where as, the same chess junior is playing an individual sport. A greater conflict would arise if the conflicting events were both team events.

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2004, 03:49 PM
hi Amiel

I now have more detail on the VIC Championship.
The top division has 11 players and is a round-robin.
Play is spread over 17 evenings and 4 venues.

And get this (Matt, you reading?) no byes, no byes, no byes,. Not bad for a field that has an odd number of players.

Player ratings are
2389, 2023, 2343, 2483, 1947, 2042, 2150, 2331, 2093, 2169, 1970.


starter
By definition if you have a round robin of 11 players you must have a bye. All that is happening is the bye is not included in the draw.

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2004, 03:53 PM
part of the issue i think is that the other sport events are school run and are representing the school, maybe. Therefore the student is duty bound to play in the team, where as, the same chess junior is playing an individual sport. A greater conflict would arise if the conflicting events were both team events.
I suspect there is really no difference between children playing rugby league on a saturday morning or soccer. You would have to make a choice between one or the other. You couldnt play in both.
It therefore makes sense to avoid clashing chess with those sports to ensure the maximum junior turnout.

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 03:55 PM
I suspect there is really no difference between children playing rugby league on a saturday morning or soccer. You would have to make a choice between one or the other. You couldnt play in both.
It therefore makes sense to avoid clashing chess with those sports to ensure the maximum junior turnout.
i agree, was just pointing out another possible reason for difficulties :whistle:

Chess Dad
15-09-2004, 04:37 PM
part of the issue i think is that the other sport events are school run and are representing the school, maybe. Therefore the student is duty bound to play in the team, where as, the same chess junior is playing an individual sport. A greater conflict would arise if the conflicting events were both team events.

If you look at the results of the Schools Chess Challenge on the NSWJCL website you will see that a large percentage of the teams are from private schools who have "regular" sport on saturdays.

http://www.nswjcl.org.au/Schools/2004/challenge/SCC_results.htm

In particular 4 of the first 5 teams in the secondary section were all from private schools.

1. Sydney Boys
2. Sydney Grammar A
3. Knox A
4. Trinity A
5. James Ruse (Public)

Whilst the private schools generally have a good commitment to chess other team sports still come first.

In addition Knox would not be able to provide the venue if the tournament was held on a saturday due to conflict with regular school activities.

ursogr8
15-09-2004, 06:15 PM
By definition if you have a round robin of 11 players you must have a bye. All that is happening is the bye is not included in the draw.

Bill

Jeez I defend some hard cases here.
> F_R
>> the GURU's titles
>>> and now the no-bye parity of an odd number of players

OK. Here goes.

Each of 11 players plays 10 rounds spread over 17 evenings at 4 venues.
No player turns up to a venue expecting to play only to find that he has a bye. In fact player A does not play on 7 of the 17 evenings. Are you going to tell me that player A has 7 byes Bill?

starter

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2004, 07:05 PM
Bill

Jeez I defend some hard cases here.
> F_R
>> the GURU's titles
>>> and now the no-bye parity of an odd number of players

OK. Here goes.

Each of 11 players plays 10 rounds spread over 17 evenings at 4 venues.
No player turns up to a venue expecting to play only to find that he has a bye. In fact player A does not play on 7 of the 17 evenings. Are you going to tell me that player A has 7 byes Bill?

starter
Based on that logic then the same is true for the NSWCA State Championship since its draw is made available on the NSWCA web site. Therefore those that get the bye know not to turn up for that round.

ursogr8
15-09-2004, 08:23 PM
Based on that logic then the same is true for the NSWCA State Championship since its draw is made available on the NSWCA web site. Therefore those that get the bye know not to turn up for that round.

Thanks Bill
I am going to take that as agreement that you personally don't regard it as a bye; because
> the inconvenience factor has disappeared, and
>> there is no point or half-point.

(You have not said you disagree with this definition, and as you are usually very complete on the BB, it is therefore a reasonable assumption of mine).

So, back to you Paul Sykes. How come you went ballistic about byes when in essence there were none?

starter

Paul S
15-09-2004, 11:22 PM
So, back to you Paul Sykes. How come you went ballistic about byes when in essence there were none?

starter

There were 15 byes in round 3 of the NSW Championship!

You seem to be going through one of your mischievous phases again, Starter. :uhoh: :rolleyes: You know very well that the NSW Championship is a Swiss, not a Round Robin.

15 out of 71 players in round 3 of the NSW Champs all got 0.5 point (and in one case 1 point) byes.

They are byes because these 15 players will only be playing a maximum of 8 out of the 9 rounds as a result of having taken a bye for Round 3, unlike your round robin Vic Championship where everyone plays each other (eventually) over 17 weeks.

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 11:26 PM
over 17 weeks.
small clarification, 17 evenings, not 17 weeks. there are approx 3 evenings per week at different venues.

ursogr8
16-09-2004, 07:55 AM
There were 15 byes in round 3 of the NSW Championship!

You seem to be going through one of your mischievous phases again, Starter. :uhoh: :rolleyes:

hi Paul S.
I am not the one being mischievious; it is Bill. He equated your 1/2-point bye to the scheduled-miss that I was describing within the VIC format. I think Bill should re-enter the thread and clarify.



You know very well that the NSW Championship is a Swiss, not a Round Robin.

Yes I knew that the NSW was a SWISS, Paul. The alternative that I have been trying to interest the Welshers in is a RR. Benefits are > more competitive, shorter time-scale (4 weeks), no byes, player-friendly venue choices, no clashes.
Perhaps I should seek clarification; do you actually want suggestions for alternatives?

starter

ursogr8
16-09-2004, 07:59 AM
small clarification, 17 evenings, not 17 weeks. there are approx 3 evenings per week at different venues.

Thanks gg''.
That was helpful to Paul S.

Further elucidation........10 games in 4 weeks in the top RR.

starter

pax
16-09-2004, 09:45 AM
Each of 11 players plays 10 rounds spread over 17 evenings at 4 venues.
No player turns up to a venue expecting to play only to find that he has a bye. In fact player A does not play on 7 of the 17 evenings. Are you going to tell me that player A has 7 byes Bill?

starter

IMO any well run tournament which has one game per day should be able to at least inform the bye recipient so they don't need to turn up unnecessarily.

In a round robin it's trivial, as the entire draw is known in advance.

ursogr8
16-09-2004, 09:52 AM
IMO any well run tournament which has one game per day should be able to at least inform the bye recipient so they don't need to turn up unnecessarily.

In a round robin it's trivial, as the entire draw is known in advance.

pax
I guess everyone will agree with ALL that you wrote.

The extra point that does seem to be debated is whether 1-point or 1/2-point byes should be allowed/considered.

eclectic
16-09-2004, 02:07 PM
pax
I guess everyone will agree with ALL that you wrote.

The extra point that does seem to be debated is whether 1-point or 1/2-point byes should be allowed/considered.

starter,

if everyone is going to get a bye then there is no point giving everyone an extra point (dealing in half points here would seem trivial)

the only problem is that results are slightly askew because not everyone has played the same number of games when progress scores are compared

the same happens anyway with the vic champs because of the scheduling irrespective of byes

i believe in one point byes for those not paired due to uneven numbers in a swiss

as for byes due to not being available for a round i wonder whether such people should get only half a point but the pairings computer treat them as if they had won the game so that they are almost sure to get a better player next round

i understand it's a well known ploy by some to feign an absence so they can sink lower down the order and thus get a better run home (irrelevant in round robins or course)

eclectic

Kerry Stead
16-09-2004, 05:01 PM
Yes I knew that the NSW was a SWISS, Paul. The alternative that I have been trying to interest the Welshers in is a RR. Benefits are > more competitive, shorter time-scale (4 weeks), no byes, player-friendly venue choices, no clashes.
Perhaps I should seek clarification; do you actually want suggestions for alternatives?

starter

I had actually suggested the Victorian format as a better alternative to the current NSW format, however the status quo prevailed. Perhaps next year ...

Paul S
16-09-2004, 08:48 PM
Yes I knew that the NSW was a SWISS, Paul. The alternative that I have been trying to interest the Welshers in is a RR. Benefits are > more competitive, shorter time-scale (4 weeks), no byes, player-friendly venue choices, no clashes.
Perhaps I should seek clarification; do you actually want suggestions for alternatives?

starter

Starter

I am happy to have your suggestions for alternatives! :D

I quite like the idea of a Round Robin for the NSW Championships, although this is not without problems (the main ones being the pain to organise/co-ordinate it and what happens when one or two players in a group of 10 withdraws).

Actually one of my most enjoyable tournaments that I play is the St George Club Championships which is a Round Robin (usually 10 players in a divisional grouping with one week set aside for postponed games). The main aspect I like about it is that week after week you play players of around your own rating (as opposed to the yo-yo effect of the first few rounds of a Swiss). Still, I wouldn't want to be the Organiser of a multiple Round Robin tournament (eg St George Club Championships) - this is a job best done by "expert organisers" (eg Charles Zworestine).

ursogr8
17-09-2004, 07:52 AM
Starter

I am happy to have your suggestions for alternatives! :D

I quite like the idea of a Round Robin for the NSW Championships,


Kerry Stead posted here the same preference; perhaps a goundswell is occurring.



although this is not without problems (the main ones being the pain to organise/co-ordinate it and what happens when one or two players in a group of 10 withdraws).

VIC seems to get fewer withdrawals, possibly due to the condensed time-frame (4 weeks), and gentle peer pressure of an 'announced' draw for the entire tourney.


Actually one of my most enjoyable tournaments that I play is the St George Club Championships which is a Round Robin (usually 10 players in a divisional grouping with one week set aside for postponed games). The main aspect I like about it is that week after week you play players of around your own rating (as opposed to the yo-yo effect of the first few rounds of a Swiss).

The old 'I prefer competitive games' debate has plenty of supporters.


Still, I wouldn't want to be the Organiser of a multiple Round Robin tournament (eg St George Club Championships) - this is a job best done by "expert organisers" (eg Charles Zworestine).

We have our Gazza.


starter

PHAT
17-09-2004, 08:36 AM
Kerry Stead posted here the same preference; perhaps a goundswell is occurring.


Don't worry, we are all safe in the tranquility of the jettiless Gletsos Harbour.

arosar
17-09-2004, 08:57 AM
For the top section - I also think RR is best plus a cutoff at 2000 ACF (or higher).

AR

ursogr8
17-09-2004, 09:28 AM
For the top section - I also think RR is best plus a cutoff at 2000 ACF (or higher).

AR

Matt, Matt
There is a groundswell !
Kerry, Paul S., Now Amiel.

It just needs you to renounce your desire for the sniper-winning-opportunity of a SWISS, and say you think a RR is a good thing, and then there will be 4.

That's a groundswell mate.

Bill will have to respond to a groundswell. :uhoh:

starter

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 11:34 AM
Matt, Matt
There is a groundswell !
Kerry, Paul S., Now Amiel.
you already have four starter :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2004, 11:40 AM
Matt, Matt
There is a groundswell !
Kerry, Paul S., Now Amiel.

It just needs you to renounce your desire for the sniper-winning-opportunity of a SWISS, and say you think a RR is a good thing, and then there will be 4.

That's a groundswell mate.

Bill will have to respond to a groundswell. :uhoh:

starter
Four is not a groundswell, except perhaps in Mexico. ;)

ursogr8
17-09-2004, 12:56 PM
For the top section - I also think RR is best plus a cutoff at 2000 ACF (or higher).

AR

Amiel
Have a look at the VIC Championships thread. You will see that a RESERVES and QUALIFIER #1 and QUALIFIER #2, also run like RR. Not just the top grade as you prefer.

And rather than being absolute with the cutoff, perhaps the criteria should be "the best 12 players (as per ranking) get into the CHAMP'P.

starter

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 01:15 PM
Amiel
Have a look at the VIC Championships thread. You will see that a RESERVES and QUALIFIER #1 and QUALIFIER #2, also run like RR. Not just the top grade as you prefer.

And rather than being absolute with the cutoff, perhaps the criteria should be "the best 12 players (as per ranking) get into the CHAMP'P.

starter
a swiss tournament isnt so bad when all the players are closely rated to each other. Not a big fan of a set number of player cut off as a decent player(s) could miss out.

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 02:38 PM
a swiss tournament isnt so bad when all the players are closely rated to each other. Not a big fan of a set number of player cut off as a decent player(s) could miss out.

I don't buy the 'a decent player could miss out' theory. Assuming the ratings are fairly accurate (Mr Gletsos ... :hmm: ) then if someone good misses out, then it should be incentive for them to either win the reserves division to automatically qualify for the following year, or if not, improve their rating to ensure their place next year.
For example, this year's NSW Championship is a 16 player swiss, but it could have been a 10 player round robin, with a 2000 rating cutoff. Yes, I would have missed out, but those are the breaks.

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 02:44 PM
For example, this year's NSW Championship is a 16 player swiss, but it could have been a 10 player round robin, with a 2000 rating cutoff. Yes, I would have missed out, but those are the breaks.
Remember that i am in favour of the way the vic champs are run, but at the risk of offending, are you a realistic chance of winning the nsw championships?

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 02:56 PM
Remember that i am in favour of the way the vic champs are run, but at the risk of offending, are you a realistic chance of winning the nsw championships?

Winning, no (Just think George & Greg are much better players); placing, possibly. I've got 4th twice, and was =5th last year.

arosar
17-09-2004, 03:06 PM
I don't buy the 'a decent player could miss out' theory. . .Yes, I would have missed out, but those are the breaks.

So you now going to change your mind re Zonal? Best idea on the zonal is to set a rating cut-off and not allow sub-2300 (or 2200 or even 2100) players. Period!

AR

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 03:17 PM
So you now going to change your mind re Zonal? Best idea on the zonal is to set a rating cut-off and not allow sub-2300 (or 2200 or even 2100) players. Period!

AR

But what about the end result of the zonal? Care to name an Australian player that has a realistic chance of winning the FIDE knockout any time soon?? Does that mean that there should not be a spot for Oceania?

arosar
17-09-2004, 03:21 PM
Does that mean that there should not be a spot for Oceania?

For a barrister you ask some silly questions. Doesn't mean that at all. What's wrong with you?

AR

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2004, 03:28 PM
The problem with a 10 player round robin is that the 11th rated or 12th rated player may be extremely hard done by. e.g. 10th rated is 2032, 11th rated is 2030, 12th rated is 2028.

Now although there is an arbitrary cut-off of 2000 in the current swiss format, players close to the cut-off can apply.

With the Rr format that isnt an option. You couldnt after all end up with a 16 player round robin over 15 weeks.

That why I think the current Swiss format is a better proposition.

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 03:32 PM
With the Rr format that isnt an option. You couldnt after all end up with a 16 player round robin over 15 weeks.

That why I think the current Swiss format is a better proposition.
and if nsw used the vic champs format of multiple venues on different nights, then amount of weeks the tournament takes to play is heavily reduced.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2004, 03:38 PM
and if nsw used the vic champs format of multiple venues on different nights, then amount of weeks the tournament takes to play is heavily reduced.
Thats immaterial as you would still need 15 rounds.

Also as I said just picking a number of players and deciding thats where the cutoff occurs is I feel undesirable.
You realistically couldnt have a group of players of 20 or 24 and run a round robin.

I stand by my view the swiss is best.

arosar
17-09-2004, 03:42 PM
Use the Campomanese System then.

AR

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 04:09 PM
Thats immaterial as you would still need 15 rounds.

Also as I said just picking a number of players and deciding thats where the cutoff occurs is I feel undesirable.
You realistically couldnt have a group of players of 20 or 24 and run a round robin.

I stand by my view the swiss is best.

But realistically though Bill, when was the last time you had 20-24 quality players playing in the NSW Championships?

The reason I thought in particular this year should have been a 10 player round robin was that there were exactly 10 players over 2000 in a 9 round event ... they fit perfectly.

I suppose the ultimate questions to ask are tied to scheduling (do people prefer Sunday afternoon, midweek nights, weekend, etc game times and whether they prefer one or more games per week) and what you consider the purpose of the tournament to be - obviously its to determine the NSW Champion, but does that also encompass giving improving juniors a chance to compete against the top players in the state? Should it only include those with a realistic chance of winning the event? What about inconsistent players?

As for the zonal question Amiel, what spin on it were you taking? That it should be elite? That only players with a realistic chance of winning it should be playing? Only those with a chance of being competitive in the FIDE knockout should be playing?

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2004, 04:16 PM
But realistically though Bill, when was the last time you had 20-24 quality players playing in the NSW Championships?

The reason I thought in particular this year should have been a 10 player round robin was that there were exactly 10 players over 2000 in a 9 round event ... they fit perfectly.
In hindsight that turns out to be true, but neither you nor I knew that until the day.


I suppose the ultimate questions to ask are tied to scheduling (do people prefer Sunday afternoon, midweek nights, weekend, etc game times and whether they prefer one or more games per week) and what you consider the purpose of the tournament to be - obviously its to determine the NSW Champion, but does that also encompass giving improving juniors a chance to compete against the top players in the state? Should it only include those with a realistic chance of winning the event? What about inconsistent players?
Clearly the aim is to find the NSW Champion. However I think improving juniors should be given the chance to compete. As for inconsistent players that is why like juniors they can apply to play.

arosar
17-09-2004, 04:23 PM
That only players with a realistic chance of winning it should be playing?

'Realistic chance' is the wrong phrase. You want competitive players while at the same time maintaining some semblance of prestige. So no U2000. You get that man? You spending too much time with the wrong junior crowd mate. Your views on life are completely mistaken.

AR

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 05:20 PM
'Realistic chance' is the wrong phrase. You want competitive players while at the same time maintaining some semblance of prestige. So no U2000. You get that man? You spending too much time with the wrong junior crowd mate. Your views on life are completely mistaken.

AR

I get where you're coming from Amiel, but what to you defines a 'competitive player'? What about 'prestige'?
How are my views on life mistaken?? :eh:

arosar
17-09-2004, 05:23 PM
I get where you're coming from Amiel, but what to you defines a 'competitive player'?

Look, ask starter.


What about 'prestige'?

What about it?


How are my views on life mistaken?? :eh:

Oh just your recent display of odd allegiances. It's surprising since you're a learned barrister.

Btw, your problem with the 16 players can be solved using the Campomanes System.

AR

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 05:36 PM
Look, ask starter.
But you mentioned competitive players. Are you talking strictly about rating differences, as Starter does? With the top seed just over 2300, 1900 players aren't exactly uncompetitive by starter's definition if I recall correctly.



What about it?
I was wondering how you defined prestige? What makes something prestigious, and something similar not?



Oh just your recent display of odd allegiances. It's surprising since you're a learned barrister.

Btw, your problem with the 16 players can be solved using the Campomanes System.
Old allegiances?
Enlighten me on what the Campomanes system is ...

arosar
17-09-2004, 05:55 PM
Enlighten me on what the Campomanes system is ...

It goes a little something like this . . .

If you have 16 players and don't want to play a swiss-system tournament of 9 rounds split them into 2 groups of 8 each (approximately equal strength). Each group plays a round robin (so each player will have 7 games). The top 2 of each will go to the finals. It is important that ties for the last qualifying slot will be resolved not through tie-break system but through playoff.

In the final round (there will be 4 players) who will play another round-robin, but WILL NOT MEET the players who came from the same preliminary group (since, obviously, they have already met in the preliminaries).

That means in the finals each player will play an additional 2 games.

So, the number of games is unchanged (9 rounds) but you can be more assured that the stronger player come out on top.

AR

Kerry Stead
17-09-2004, 06:09 PM
It goes a little something like this . . .

If you have 16 players and don't want to play a swiss-system tournament of 9 rounds split them into 2 groups of 8 each (approximately equal strength). Each group plays a round robin (so each player will have 7 games). The top 2 of each will go to the finals. It is important that ties for the last qualifying slot will be resolved not through tie-break system but through playoff.

In the final round (there will be 4 players) who will play another round-robin, but WILL NOT MEET the players who came from the same preliminary group (since, obviously, they have already met in the preliminaries).

That means in the finals each player will play an additional 2 games.

So, the number of games is unchanged (9 rounds) but you can be more assured that the stronger player come out on top.

AR

Sounds fine, although the playoff option for places in the final could be a little problematic. I assume points from the preliminaries continue through to the finals ... what happens if the draw is lop-sided (ie: one person runs away with one group, but the other is closely fought)?

Garvinator
17-09-2004, 09:09 PM
It goes a little something like this . . .

If you have 16 players and don't want to play a swiss-system tournament of 9 rounds split them into 2 groups of 8 each (approximately equal strength). Each group plays a round robin (so each player will have 7 games). The top 2 of each will go to the finals. It is important that ties for the last qualifying slot will be resolved not through tie-break system but through playoff.

In the final round (there will be 4 players) who will play another round-robin, but WILL NOT MEET the players who came from the same preliminary group (since, obviously, they have already met in the preliminaries).

That means in the finals each player will play an additional 2 games.

So, the number of games is unchanged (9 rounds) but you can be more assured that the stronger player come out on top.

AR


finals are only used in sports when time is limited and the organisation running the sport is trying to make money out of finals. Also tv wants finals as more ppl watch.

As only one of these concerns apply here(time limited), a finals system is not needed. Also finals are notorious for finding the best person on the day, not the best person over a period of time. Championship events are a high number of rounds to find out the best player over a period of time, not just one day.

Bill said that it was only known on the day that there was a nice easy number of 16, well in the vic champs, the entrants have to enter before hand and then the draw is done. There is no entering on the day.

By having entries taken beforehand, a cut off number is easily determined.

arosar
18-09-2004, 12:45 PM
finals are only used in sports when time is limited and the organisation running the sport is trying to make money out of finals. Also tv wants finals as more ppl watch.

Irrelevant. Campo designed the system precisely to address the problem in a situation where you have as many as 16 players and want to avoid a swiss. If you have less than 16 players, then clearly Campo's system need not be used.


As only one of these concerns apply here(time limited), a finals system is not needed. Also finals are notorious for finding the best person on the day, not the best person over a period of time. Championship events are a high number of rounds to find out the best player over a period of time, not just one day.

You're getting yourself worked up over the word, 'finals'. Think about the system again and you'll see that what you have to say is quite irrelevant.

AR

Duff McKagan
18-09-2004, 01:30 PM
For the sake of setting a high standard, O2000 and RR is best. Like Kerry Stead, tough luck to the juniors, if they are improving, they can get O2000 first! Too many juniors know how to beat 2000s+ but then lose to people their rating. That's beside the point really. The point is what Amiel was saying... the NSW would be more prestigious and there would be an effort to participate. Plus you'd see some other players coming out of the woodwork to compete.

Kerry Stead
18-09-2004, 05:34 PM
For the sake of setting a high standard, O2000 and RR is best. Like Kerry Stead, tough luck to the juniors, if they are improving, they can get O2000 first! Too many juniors know how to beat 2000s+ but then lose to people their rating. That's beside the point really. The point is what Amiel was saying... the NSW would be more prestigious and there would be an effort to participate. Plus you'd see some other players coming out of the woodwork to compete.

You mean you might be one of those emerging from the woodwork?

I didn't want to specify a rating limit - just have it run as a round robin, and the top X (insert number, probably 10 or 12) players play a round robin. As I said earlier, I'm a big fan of the Victorian system, but it seems there are some in NSW who are not so convinced of its merits.

ursogr8
18-09-2004, 09:34 PM
In hindsight that turns out to be true, but neither you nor I knew that until the day.


Bill
Have you looked at the VIC system closely. Entries close nearly a week before round 1; and as you will see if you re-visit that thread......the pairings for round 1 were up days before day 1.
Thus, you might have to retract your comment about envisaging 24 qualified entrants.




Clearly the aim is to find the NSW Champion. However I think improving juniors should be given the chance to compete.



Are you implying that some juniors may be under-rated and hence should be be considered entrants for a Championship run under VIC conditions?



starter