PDA

View Full Version : Combined Leagues Rapidplay



Paul S
13-08-2004, 11:27 PM
The first 3 rounds of this 9 round Sydney Interclub tournament (30 mins per player per game) started on Wednesday (11/8/04).

Over the last few years there have been around 100 to 120 players participating. Yet last Wednesday there were only around 60 players! Rather disappointing and made the atmosphere somewhat flat.

2003 winners (Wests) apparently had some sort of communication breakdown among their organising committee, with the result that only 6 Wests players are playing this year (from memory Wests had around 20 players last year). Ryde-Eastwood (which usually supplies around 15 players) apparently decided (for whatever reason) not to enter this year (Bill, why isn't your club playing this year?). Numbers seemed down at most clubs (eg this year Canterbury has 14 players while 2 years ago Canterbury had 21 players when it won in 2002). Looks like St George are likely to win this year (as they have 22 players), but you never know. George Xie (who has been the overall individual winner in 2001, 2002 and 2003) was unable to play this year (he is currently playing in the Australian Masters in Melbourne).

I was unable to see much of the games as (apart from playing), I was assisting in the running of the tournament (looking after Canterbury's equipment and fulfilling my roles as Canterbury's main organiser and Treasurer of St George).

With the absence of George Xie it looks like players such as Fred Flatow and Johnny Bolens have the best chances of winning (although one can't rule out players like Jason Chan and Arthur Huynh who due to their age are more suited to Rapidplay than some of their higher rated opponents).

Bill Gletsos
14-08-2004, 01:05 AM
The first 3 rounds of this 9 round Sydney Interclub tournament (30 mins per player per game) started on Wednesday (11/8/04).

Over the last few years there have been around 100 to 120 players participating. Yet last Wednesday there were only around 60 players! Rather disappointing and made the atmosphere somewhat flat.

2003 winners (Wests) apparently had some sort of communication breakdown among their organising committee, with the result that only 6 Wests players are playing this year (from memory Wests had around 20 players last year). Ryde-Eastwood (which usually supplies around 15 players) apparently decided (for whatever reason) not to enter this year (Bill, why isn't your club playing this year?). Numbers seemed down at most clubs (eg this year Canterbury has 14 players while 2 years ago Canterbury had 21 players when it won in 2002). Looks like St George are likely to win this year (as they have 22 players), but you never know. George Xie (who has been the overall individual winner in 2001, 2002 and 2003) was unable to play this year (he is currently playing in the Australian Masters in Melbourne).

I was unable to see much of the games as (apart from playing), I was assisting in the running of the tournament (looking after Canterbury's equipment and fulfilling my roles as Canterbury's main organiser and Treasurer of St George).

With the absence of George Xie it looks like players such as Fred Flatow and Johnny Bolens have the best chances of winning (although one can't rule out players like Jason Chan and Arthur Huynh who due to their age are more suited to Rapidplay than some of their higher rated opponents).
Ryde-Eastwood has played in it since its inception and if I recall correctly the presentation night for the event has always been at Ryde-Eastwood.
Ryde-Eastwood made a conscious decision to boycott the event this year.

Over many years the event has been held on the home night of the 3 clubs where it has been held. Those clubs had usually been Ryde-Eastwood St. George and Mt. Pritchard. Wednesdays are Ryde Eastwoods playing night.

Back in 2001 the organiser George Biakovas decided to drop Ryde-Eastwood as a venue in favour of Punchbowl in an effort I believe to support the host club. This did not concern Ryde-Easwtood. We continued to participate.

However last year and again this year the event is being held on 3 consecutive wednesdays even though wednesday is not the 3 clubs home nights. Ryde-Eastwood decided this was unacceptable as it meant it was impossible for our players to participate in the event and also play at our own club.

PHAT
14-08-2004, 07:14 PM
The first 3 rounds of this 9 round Sydney Interclub tournament (30 mins per player per game) started on Wednesday (11/8/04).

Over the last few years there have been around 100 to 120 players participating. Yet last Wednesday there were only around 60 players! Rather disappointing and made the atmosphere somewhat flat.



Well, dude, I for one did not even know it was on. I am sure I could have found a few players to represent Wollongong. :(

Paul S
16-08-2004, 12:18 AM
Well, dude, I for one did not even know it was on. I am sure I could have found a few players to represent Wollongong. :(

I'll send an email to the organisers (George Baikovas and Charles Zworestine) to let them know of your interest. Obviously it is too late for this year, but well see what can be done for getting Wollongong players involved for 2005. I'm sure that George or Charles will be in touch with you about this shortly.

P.S. Do you read your Inbox? I sent you a PM on 15/7/04, but you appear to have not yet read it (I have an unconfirmed meassage receipt for it).

Bill Gletsos
16-08-2004, 12:22 AM
P.S. Do you read your Inbox? I sent you a PM on 15/7/04, but you appear to have not yet read it (I have an unconfirmed meassage receipt for it).
Now why doesnt that surprise me. ;)

PHAT
16-08-2004, 06:44 AM
P.S. Do you read your Inbox? I sent you a PM on 15/7/04, but you appear to have not yet read it (I have an unconfirmed meassage receipt for it).

Sorry dude, must/might have been deleated with my weekly spam trashing session. Do send again.

Garvinator
16-08-2004, 06:50 AM
Sorry dude, must/might have been deleated with my weekly spam trashing session. Do send again.
pm on here, not emails

Paul S
17-08-2004, 12:09 AM
pm on here, not emails

"Problem" has been fixed (Matthew sent me a PM yesterday replying to the PM in question).

Now, we can get back to what the thread is supposed to be about, the Combined Leagues Rapidplay.........

:) :P :cool:

Paul S
18-08-2004, 11:36 PM
Rounds 4, 5 and 6 were played tonight at Punchbowl RSL & Community Club. This venue has some shortcomings, but it does have one advantage - its only 2km from where I live! ;)

I did not get to see much of the games, as I was playing (and doing a bit of assisting Charles Z between my games and packing up Canterbury's equipment as soon as the Round 6 games progressively finished).

After Round 6, the leading scores are:
5.5 - Flatow (Canterbury)
5 - Bolens (Easts), Castor (Wests), Benson (Canterbury) and Rose (Canterbury).

Paul S
26-08-2004, 12:32 AM
The last 3 rounds were played tonight at Mt Pritchard.

The DOP Charles Zworestine will post the full results on the NSWCA website in due course.

The winning club is not yet known (although it looks like being Canterbury), as some results (minor placings in the 5 divisions - Open, U1900, U1700, U1600 and U1400) need to be determined on countback.

Leading Final Scores were:
1st - David Castor (Wests) 8/9
2nd - Fred Flatow (Canterbury) 7.5/9
3rd - Johnny Bolens (Easts) 7/9

Divisional Winners were:
U1900 - Rick Carballo (Mt Pritchard)
U1700 - Leo Soto (Canterbury)
U1600 - Cem Atila (St George)
U1400 - Alex Forbath (Canterbury)

Paul S
29-08-2004, 10:27 PM
Spoke to Charles Zworestine at the NSW State Championships today.

Charles (and co-organiser George Baikovas) have done all the countbacks and determined the team results. They are:

1st - Canterbury - 27 points :D
2nd - St George - 22 points
3rd - Mount Pritchard - 15 points
4th - Western Suburbs - 6 points
5th - Eastern Suburbs - 3 points
6th - North Sydney - 2 points

Paul S
29-08-2004, 11:35 PM
I can now confirm that this event will NOT be rated as the organiser is not prepared to pay the ACF admin fee. He claims it was not budgeted for. Srange if that is the case as they paid the fee for last year with more players.

Yes, Charles told me about this today.

I am NOT happy about it! I consider it more important to get the games rated than get "door prizes"/finger food on the Presentation Night as far as the Tournament budget is concerned.

I will be raising this matter with George Baikovas soon. Hopefully he will change his mind and get them rated (for December rating).

I know of a few Canterbury players (especially 3 new players who are keen to get a rating for the fiirst time) who will be annoyed if these games are not rated, as they (like me) expect them to be rated.

For various reasons the numbers were significantly down this year (60) compared to previous years (100-120). I suspect that if this years comp is not rated then the numbers may well go down further next year!

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 11:42 PM
I know of a few Canterbury players (especially 3 new players who are keen to get a rating for the fiirst time) who will be annoyed if these games are not rated, as they (like me) expect them to be rated.
Of course remember its Rapid rated. This wont help them of they want a normal rating.

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 11:45 PM
The admin fee would have beem around $61.

Paul S
29-08-2004, 11:49 PM
Of course remember its Rapid rated. This wont help them of they want a normal rating.

Yes, Bill, I am aware of the differences between the "Normal" and "Rapid" rating systems (and that the ACF charges normal games at 25c per player per game and rapid games at the cheaper rate of 10c per player per game)!

In fact I have spent a bit of time in the last few weeks explaining to various Canterbury players (especially the new ones) the differences between the two rating systems!

Goughfather
30-08-2004, 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
I can now confirm that this event will NOT be rated as the organiser is not prepared to pay the ACF admin fee. He claims it was not budgeted for. Srange if that is the case as they paid the fee for last year with more players.

What a rip off!!! I performed at well over 2200 at this tournament. An increase of $1 in entry fees would have paid for the games to be rated. Too many players in NSW don't have a rapid rating, and now I know why.

For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to contribute at least $10 towards rating the tournament. Hopefully there are others who are happy to join me in this worthy endeavour!

Bill Gletsos
30-08-2004, 12:35 AM
What a rip off!!! I performed at well over 2200 at this tournament. An increase of $1 in entry fees would have paid for the games to be rated. Too many players in NSW don't have a rapid rating, and now I know why.

For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to contribute at least $10 towards rating the tournament. Hopefully there are others who are happy to join me in this worthy endeavour!
I suggest you and other participants inform the organiser of your displeasure.

Paul S
30-08-2004, 12:39 AM
What a rip off!!! I performed at well over 2200 at this tournament.

:hmm: Goughfather = David Castor? :hmm:


An increase of $1 in entry fees would have paid for the games to be rated. Too many players in NSW don't have a rapid rating, and now I know why.

Or get rid of the lucky door ("pointsmoney") prizemoney on presentation night.

Or have no finger food at the presentation night (I can live without it!).


For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to contribute at least $10 towards rating the tournament. Hopefully there are others who are happy to join me in this worthy endeavour!

Count me in, if it has to come to this!

First though I will send an email to George (and club delegates) tomorrow - lets see what becomes of it!

Goughfather
30-08-2004, 12:51 AM
Goughfather = David Castor?

I have a feeling you might be onto something there.


Or get rid of the lucky door ("pointsmoney") prizemoney on presentation night.

Or have no finger food at the presentation night (I can live without it!).

Either of these ways would have been equally acceptable. As I'd suggested before, I don't think our clubs would have had any significant concerns with paying a extra $1 per player.


Count me in, if it has to come to this!

First though I will send an email to George (and club delegates) tomorrow - lets see what becomes of it!

Alright, sounds terrific! I would have thought that rating the games had a greater priority, but I'm guessing that one of the whole points of the Rapid Play is to subsidise the Presentation Night. Even so, I'm sure that we are not the only players who feel rorted by this incident.

Incidentally Bill, do you know if it is possible to get a summary of the budget for the Rapid Play, so I know where my club's, and since I support the club, my money is going?

Bill Gletsos
30-08-2004, 11:48 AM
Incidentally Bill, do you know if it is possible to get a summary of the budget for the Rapid Play, so I know where my club's, and since I support the club, my money is going?
Sorry cant help you there since I have never seen one.

Paul S
30-08-2004, 07:14 PM
I have a feeling you might be onto something there.

So do I, DAVID! ;)


Either of these ways would have been equally acceptable. As I'd suggested before, I don't think our clubs would have had any significant concerns with paying a extra $1 per player.

At the end of last year, it was suggested that the per player fee be increased from $10 to $12 (in order to ensure the tournament would be rated). The fee has been $10 per player for many years. (BTW, $12 per player entry fee is the same as the 7 week Interleagues which starts this week). To my knowledge no club objected to this proposed increase - if anything they supported it (due to last year it was touch and go as to whether or not it was going to be rated due to "budget concerns"). Yet for whatever reasons the fee was the same as last year ($10 per player).


Incidentally Bill, do you know if it is possible to get a summary of the budget for the Rapid Play, so I know where my club's, and since I support the club, my money is going?

I don't have a summary of the budget, so I cant help you there!

P.S. One way or another, this tournament WILL end up being rated! At this stage the most likely scenario is that (to make up the estimated $60 in rating fees) each club organiser will chip in a minor out of pocket expense (and be later re-imbursed by their club if they wish) ranging from $5 to $20 (proportional to the number of players in the club who played). I'm almost tempted to put in the $60 myself, but I have sent some emails today about this matter and "things are in progress"!

Bill Gletsos
30-08-2004, 07:21 PM
So do I, DAVID! ;)



At the end of last year, it was suggested that the per player fee be increased from $10 to $12 (in order to ensure the tournament would be rated). The fee has been $10 per player for many years. (BTW, $12 per player entry fee is the same as the 7 week Interleagues which starts this week). To my knowledge no club objected to this proposed increase - if anything they supported it (due to last year it was touch and go as to whether or not it was going to be rated due to "budget concerns"). Yet for whatever reasons the fee was the same as last year ($10 per player).



I don't have a summary of the budget, so I cant help you there!

P.S. One way or another, this tournament WILL end up being rated! At this stage the most likely scenario is that (to make up the estimated $60 in rating fees) each club organiser will chip in a minor out of pocket expense (and be later re-imbursed by their club if they wish) ranging from $5 to $20 (proportional to the number of players in the club who played). I'm almost tempted to put in the $60 myself, but I have sent some emails today about this matter and "things are in progress"!
Paul, if you are prepared to guarantee the payment of the rating fee then I will include the event in this rating period.

Goughfather
30-08-2004, 07:26 PM
That's terrific Paul. Personally, I had reservations about contributing (though I would have done so anyway), for the sole reason that it encourages similar things to happen in the future.

Bill, just wondering if one's K factor changes from tournament to tournament, or rating period to rating period? It'd be good if I can milk good results and a high K factor for as long as possible.

Bill Gletsos
30-08-2004, 07:34 PM
At the end of last year, it was suggested that the per player fee be increased from $10 to $12 (in order to ensure the tournament would be rated). The fee has been $10 per player for many years. (BTW, $12 per player entry fee is the same as the 7 week Interleagues which starts this week). To my knowledge no club objected to this proposed increase - if anything they supported it (due to last year it was touch and go as to whether or not it was going to be rated due to "budget concerns"). Yet for whatever reasons the fee was the same as last year ($10 per player).
I should point out that last years 7 round Interleagues event was not rated at the request of the organisers.
Perhaps the clubs should discuss this with the organisers to ensure it does not occur again this year.

Paul S
30-08-2004, 07:43 PM
Paul, if you are prepared to guarantee the payment of the rating fee then I will include the event in this rating period.

OK, I guarantee it! :)

Even if (in the worst possible case) it ends up costing me $60!!!

Paul S
30-08-2004, 07:46 PM
I should point out that last years 7 round Interleagues event was not rated at the request of the organisers.
Perhaps the clubs should discuss this with the organisers to ensure it does not occur again this year.

I am very surprised to hear that!

Mind you, I haven't played in the 7 round Interleagues for a few years (and I am not playing in it again this year).

I will follow up on this! I know of some Canterbury players who would be annoyed to learn about this!

Goughfather
30-08-2004, 08:03 PM
I'm not playing in it this year, though I would have liked to. Things just tend to get difficult around September through to November because of academic commitments. Learnt that the hard way last year!

Paul S
30-08-2004, 11:35 PM
That's terrific Paul. Personally, I had reservations about contributing (though I would have done so anyway), for the sole reason that it encourages similar things to happen in the future.

Yes, that is a good point! :clap:

I certainly do NOT intend to make a habit of doing this!

Paul S
30-08-2004, 11:45 PM
Paul, if you are prepared to guarantee the payment of the rating fee then I will include the event in this rating period.

Hi Bill

As mentioned earlier I have guaranteed the payment of the rating fees.

It was not necessary to inconvenience yourself (ie include the Combined Leagues Rapidplay ratings in the September ratings at this late stage), but seeing that you have, I say well done and thankyou! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
30-08-2004, 11:59 PM
Hi Bill

As mentioned earlier I have guaranteed the payment of the rating fees.

It was not necessary to inconvenience yourself (ie include the Combined Leagues Rapidplay ratings in the September ratings at this late stage), but seeing that you have, I say well done and thankyou! :clap: :clap: :clap:
It was no problem.
I had the files so I just had to generate additions for 7 new players.

PHAT
31-08-2004, 06:29 AM
Overall, this is a good out come for the current fiasco.

However, I wonder if the current policy of not rating games until the money is paid, is in the best interests of the players. Let me suggest:

Everything gets rated.

If the money is not forthcoming, the event is listed on the ACF website as a "defalting client", and that no event run by its organisers (club or individual) will be rated until outstanding fees are paid.

Such outing is usually effective in getting money out of people.

Bill Gletsos
31-08-2004, 10:59 AM
Overall, this is a good out come for the current fiasco.

However, I wonder if the current policy of not rating games until the money is paid, is in the best interests of the players.
That isnt the current policy in NSW and i dont believe it is in the other states either.
In NSW, the NSW ratings officer will submit events he receives in good faith that they will be paid. I believe the same is true for the other states.
In the case of NSW since the introduction of the ACF admin fee only one organiser has submitted an event and then refused to pay the fee.
That particular case involved a previous Interleagues rapid. At the request of the NSWCA Council the event was later removed from the ACF Rapid ratings.

Therefore in the case of the Interleagues rapid NSW will not rate his event unless the organiser gives a firm undertaking to pay the admin fee.


Of course if an event is never actually submitted to a State Rating Officer for rating then it isnt rated.