PDA

View Full Version : zonal



Pages : [1] 2

bobby1972
26-08-2004, 08:50 AM
is there anything of the sort coming in the near future or are they finished,and where, hope its in australia.

Brian_Jones
26-08-2004, 09:45 AM
The Zonal in Auckland in late January 2005 is now confirmed and entry forms are available. See Australian Chess magazine due out next week and also Gary Bekker's Oceania website.

bobby1972
26-08-2004, 10:24 AM
thanks for the info.also can anyone play or do you have to apply .in the newsletter there is a deadly of 20 sept

arosar
26-08-2004, 11:03 AM
So you don't have to be 2300+ to play in zonals?

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 11:15 AM
So you don't have to be 2300+ to play in zonals?

AR
If you dont want them to be considered a joke, then you probably want to set a rating cutoff of around 2200. Certainly letting people play rated under 2100 let alone 2000 is just plain stupid.
The only exception could be that if a particular country in the zone has no players over the rating limit then allow them to nominate one player.

arosar
26-08-2004, 11:36 AM
If you dont want them to be considered a joke . . .

You mean like the joke that was the Gold Coast a few years back?

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 11:57 AM
You mean like the joke that was the Gold Coast a few years back?

AR
What do you think? :whistle:

Brian_Jones
26-08-2004, 12:26 PM
Here we go again - encouraging people not to play in tournaments.
Anybody can play in the Oceania Zonal - the just need to pay the entry fee.
If there was a cut-off at all, it would be logical to make it 1600 or 1800 the same as the cut-off for FIDE ratings. Don't lets go back to the bad old days when you had to be a strong player to play chess! Chess is for everybody!

arosar
26-08-2004, 12:32 PM
Chess is for everybody!

Of course it is. But not the zonals.

You makin' any money out of this Brian?

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 12:37 PM
Here we go again - encouraging people not to play in tournaments.
Anybody can play in the Oceania Zonal - the just need to pay the entry fee.
If there was a cut-off at all, it would be logical to make it 1600 or 1800 the same as the cut-off for FIDE ratings. Don't lets go back to the bad old days when you had to be a strong player to play chess! Chess is for everybody!
Yes chess is for everyone but this is a zonal, not some weekender.

Garvinator
26-08-2004, 01:06 PM
it does seem that ppl have a problem differentiating(spell check) between events that should be all in for everybody and events that should be for 'elite' participation only.

arosar
26-08-2004, 01:21 PM
it does seem that ppl have a problem differentiating(spell check) between events that should be all in for everybody and events that should be for 'elite' participation only.

gray . . . Mr Jones isn't quite as clueless as you seem to imply. He's been around. I'd rather have him than you, as organiser, any day. He just has certain interests to pursue.

AR

ursogr8
26-08-2004, 01:38 PM
You makin' any money out of this Brian?

AR

Amiel
Do you have a problem with this idea of making money from chess promotion? :confused:
starter

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 01:44 PM
Amiel
Do you have a problem with this idea of making money from chess promotion? :confused:
starter
I simply saw AR's question as trying to determine if Brian had a possible vested interest in having everyman and his dog play as opposed to only those with some legitimacy being allowed to compete.

arosar
26-08-2004, 02:16 PM
Amiel
Do you have a problem with this idea of making money from chess promotion? :confused:

Problem? Problem?

'Course not! I was exploring Brian's motives since, for such an experienced organiser, he ought to know better than make silly suggestions.

AR

ursogr8
26-08-2004, 02:30 PM
I simply saw AR's question as trying to determine if Brian had a possible vested interest in having everyman and his dog play as opposed to only those with some legitimacy being allowed to compete.

Bill
I had the same impression as you; that AR was on a COI point. In which case I had an argument with him

But you and I were wrong, completely. AR's objection was in his first sentence, not his second. (See his later post).

starter

bobby1972
26-08-2004, 02:35 PM
is it 2200 elo ,because thats not impossible but if it is aus it becomes very hard

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 02:48 PM
Bill
I had the same impression as you; that AR was on a COI point. In which case I had an argument with him

But you and I were wrong, completely. AR's objection was in his first sentence, not his second. (See his later post).

starter
I dont agree.
AR only said he has no problems if Brian was making money.
However AR makes it clear his motive for asking the question was that he thought Brian's suggestion silly. Therefore was Brian's reason for such a silly suggestion because he had a financial interest.
If that was the case then his interest was vested.

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 02:53 PM
is it 2200 elo ,because thats not impossible but if it is aus it becomes very hard
It is effectively a FIDE qualification event therefore using FIDE ratings would seem reasonable.
Of course given that the vast majority of players have far more ACF rated games than FIDE games I'd like an additional proviso that eligability is "as long as the players FIDE ratings was within 100 points of their ACF rating".

Then again, I'm probably biased.

arosar
26-08-2004, 02:56 PM
I dont agree.
AR only said he has no problems if Brian was making money.
However AR makes it clear his motive for asking the question was that he thought Brian's suggestion silly. Therefore was Brian's reason for such a silly suggestion because he had a financial interest.
If that was the case then his interest was vested.

That's right.

I wasn't angling for COI as such.

AR

bobby1972
26-08-2004, 03:12 PM
very interesting point bill about oz rating being within 100 points of elo ,what is the comparison.but every one should be able to play in zonal ,because if a low rated player enters then if he gets crushed its ok its experince and if he does say ok he ca pick up rating points ,that way it makes chess more interesting ,also most important juniors playing in turny like this makes them more experince

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 03:22 PM
very interesting point bill about oz rating being within 100 points of elo ,what is the comparison.
Above 2300 ACF the difference between ACF and FIDE is quite small.
It as you move further down the list the difference gets much bigger.


but every one should be able to play in zonal ,because if a low rated player enters then if he gets crushed its ok its experince and if he does say ok he ca pick up rating points ,that way it makes chess more interesting ,also most important juniors playing in turny like this makes them more experince
I disagree.
That is not the function of the zonal.
The function of the zonal has been in recent years to determine qualifiers for the world championship.

Brian_Jones
26-08-2004, 05:29 PM
My interest is that the Oceania Zonal's, and other events such as the Auckland International which use the same nine round one week format designed by Graeme Gardiner, and supported by Gary Bekker and Paul Spiller, have been popular and I like them. Not just because they are zonals and offer world championship places/titles but because they are more attractive to me than weekenders. Why - because you can combine chess and a holiday at a nice venue.

I would be happy for Ian, Darryl, Gary and a kiwi to play off for the World Championship place. I would be happy for Irina and a couple of others to play for the Womens place. But I want a holiday and (for the sake of chess popularity) the chance for others to have a shot at winning zonal titles. I know heaps of players who are bored with the existing tournaments offered by state organisers and seek something different and exciting. The zonals are like the modern day equivalent of the Norfolk Island events that were so popular ten or so years ago. I think the Oceania zonals are much better than the European zonals which are for established elite players only. What does it matter if more players in our region become IMs and FMs? What does it matter if Amiel scores 4.5/9 and gets an FM title?

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 05:39 PM
My interest is that the Oceania Zonal's, and other events such as the Auckland International which use the same nine round one week format designed by Graeme Gardiner, and supported by Gary Bekker and Paul Spiller, have been popular and I like them. Not just because they are zonals and offer world championship places/titles but because they are more attractive to me than weekenders. Why - because you can combine chess and a holiday at a nice venue.

I would be happy for Ian, Darryl, Gary and a kiwi to play off for the World Championship place. I would be happy for Irina and a couple of others to play for the Womens place. But I want a holiday and (for the sake of chess popularity) the chance for others to have a shot at winning zonal titles. I know heaps of players who are bored with the existing tournaments offered by state organisers and seek something different and exciting. The zonals are like the modern day equivalent of the Norfolk Island events that were so popular ten or so years ago. I think the Oceania zonals are much better than the European zonals which are for established elite players only. What does it matter if more players in our region become IMs and FMs? What does it matter if Amiel scores 4.5/9 and gets an FM title?
All you are doing in that case is devaluing the IM and FM titles.
Allowing players who have no real right to compete in the event because their rating is just so low makes it so much easier for players to score the 50% required for the FM title.

If you want a holiday then have organisers arrange an event that meets your needs, dont bastardise the zonal.
If you do then all you are doing is making a mockery of the zonals.

ursogr8
26-08-2004, 05:49 PM
Allowing players who have no real right to compete in the event because their rating is just so low makes it so much easier for players to score the 50% required for the FM title.




Brian

Is this common practice in other zones?

starter

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 05:54 PM
Brian

Is this common practice in other zones?

starter
No.
Parr showed this amongst others back when the original Gold Coast Zonal was held.

Brian_Jones
26-08-2004, 05:55 PM
What does it matter if the titles are devalued and the Zonal is misused?

In my opinion, you (as NSWCA President) have certain responsibilities that are embedded in the constitution. Tell me where it says you have to maintain the elitism of the zonals? Where does it say you must not devalue FIDE titles.
FIDE want more people to have titles, they want more people to have FIDE ratings, they then get more income and put it back into chess!

In fact Bill you should be organising some of these increasingly popular non-elite Graeme Gardiner type events in NSW! If you are not doing so then there you are not doing your job properly!

eclectic
26-08-2004, 06:09 PM
What does it matter if the titles are devalued and the Zonal is misused?

In my opinion, you (as NSWCA President) have certain responsibilities that are embedded in the constitution. Tell me where it says you have to maintain the elitism of the zonals? Where does it say you must not devalue FIDE titles.
FIDE want more people to have titles, they want more people to have FIDE ratings, they then get more income and put it back into chess!

In fact Bill you should be organising some of these increasingly popular non-elite Graeme Gardiner type events in NSW! If you are not doing so then there you are not doing your job properly!

so brian,

if i want a discount should i decide to buy chess books etc off you by what percentage will you devalue the merchandise?

;)

eclectic

arosar
26-08-2004, 06:25 PM
What does it matter if more players in our region
become IMs and FMs?

Listen Brian mate, this is not a good position for you to take. I like chess holidays too - but the zonals are not the proper tournaments. Everybody can see the stupidity of this concept. If we have a Gold Coast Joke redux, we will ridicule the tourn and every idiot involved in its running.

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 06:48 PM
What does it matter if the titles are devalued and the Zonal is misused?
The answer to this is fairly obvious.
There are events that should be open to everyone and there are events that should be available to the elite.
The zonal falls into the later category.


In my opinion, you (as NSWCA President) have certain responsibilities that are embedded in the constitution.
Running zonals isnt one of them.
Thats an ACF issue.
The ACF as a member of FIDE should run the zonals in accordance with FIDE regulations.
It was mainly thru Australia's misuse of the zonal in its running of the Gold Coast Zonal that FIDE changed the rules regarding IM & FM titles in zonals restricting the number of titles that could be awarded down from unlimited to 1 IM and 2 FM titles.



Tell me where it says you have to maintain the elitism of the zonals? Where does it say you must not devalue FIDE titles.
FIDE want more people to have titles, they want more people to have FIDE ratings, they then get more income and put it back into chess!
FIDE's wishes that more players have FIDE ratings may not be the wishes of the NSWCA or the ACF, especially with regards sub 2000 FIDE ratings.
As for FIDE putting more money back into chess, can you provide an example where FIDE has done this in regards to Australian chess.



In fact Bill you should be organising some of these increasingly popular non-elite Graeme Gardiner type events in NSW! If you are not doing so then there you are not doing your job properly!Apart from the Zonal what non-elite event are you alluding to has Graham run.
If you mean the Gold Coast Open, then NSW runs the NSW Open.
The Gold Coast Open isnt FIDE rated, the NSW Open is.

If you mean the Ruth Coxhill or Hardy Classic tournaments then running events to give people sub 2000 FIDE ratings is not in my opinion a high priority.

Kerry Stead
26-08-2004, 07:24 PM
I'm with Brian on this one.
All this fuss about extra titles that will be devalued is for the most part a non-issue following the rule changes by FIDE (after the controversial Gold Coast Zonal). As for other countries not having 'cheap' titles, where do you think the Egyptian IMs & FMs that played in the Australian Open in Canberra in 2001 got their titles from? Zonal events. Yes, they were good players, but were in the 2150-2300 range ... which strictly speaking isn't good enough for an FM title, let alone an IM title. Did it bother anyone at the tournament? I don't think so.
If you look at the players who have achieved 'soft' titles from the Oceania zonals, only a handful of players from the original Gold Coast event could properly be seen as being less-than-deserving of the title. Of the IMs, I think every one of the 'cheap' zonal IMs has proven that they are deserving of the title.
As for it somehow being easy to get a title at a zonal, that is hardly the case. I played in the last zonal held on the Gold Coast (yes, there was one there AFTER the infamous one - the one which Gluzman won in a playoff from Chapman) and scored 5/9, yet I came away title-less due to tiebreaks. Yes, if FIDE hadn't changed the rules I would have a title, but they did - why? - to tighten up the rules ... to maintain some prestige for the title!

Bill, you seem to be often blinded by numbers. Yes, you do an excellent job as ratings officer, but they are not the be all and end all of chess tournaments. What are the chances of Ian Rogers losing the first round of the Doeberl Cup to a player rated 600 points below him (Damanoj Dragicevic)? Pretty low ... but it happened. What are the chances of a FIDE unrated player (Ronald Yu), rated around 500 ACF points below the top seed (David Smerdon) tying for first with that player, including winning their individual game and going undefeated in the tournament, in the inaugural Australian Young Masters? Pretty low ... but it happened.
Lets face facts ... the chances of one of these 'non-elite' sub-2200 players winning the event and qualifying for the World Championships is fairly remote, however who are we to begrudge someone who has an outstanding tournament from being rewarded accordingly. Sometimes these sub-2200 players can actually play good games of chess ... you'd be amazed!

As for the complaints about the FIDE rated events that Graeme runs, they are not there simply to generate extra FIDE ratings on the Gold Coast (although when unrated players have good tournaments, that is one effect), but they are there to give players a chance at playing a strong chess event - a change from the usual club or weekender chess that has the potential to suffer from either the familiarity factor, or the yo-yo effect. Again, to take someone as an example, look at the rise of Moulthun Ly on the Gold Coast. He's an extremely talented young player, but if he did not have the opportunity to compete against players in events like those run by Graeme, do you think he would be quite as strong as he is now?

The zonals will never (in my opinion anyway) become an event that is dominated by sub-2000 players, so I think these fears that some of you hold for the event to be completely unfounded. To use another game as an example, if I had the money, I could play in the world poker championship ... no qualification necessary ... just turn up with the money. Is there a problem in the poker world because of it? No, because there is skill involved in the game, so that although you might occasionally have some unheralded player making it to the end, more often than not, its the established elite that win such events. I can't see that chess would be much different ... and there is a qualification system involved to boot!

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 08:23 PM
I'm with Brian on this one.
All this fuss about extra titles that will be devalued is for the most part a non-issue following the rule changes by FIDE (after the controversial Gold Coast Zonal). As for other countries not having 'cheap' titles, where do you think the Egyptian IMs & FMs that played in the Australian Open in Canberra in 2001 got their titles from? Zonal events. Yes, they were good players, but were in the 2150-2300 range ... which strictly speaking isn't good enough for an FM title, let alone an IM title. Did it bother anyone at the tournament? I don't think so.
If you look at the players who have achieved 'soft' titles from the Oceania zonals, only a handful of players from the original Gold Coast event could properly be seen as being less-than-deserving of the title. Of the IMs, I think every one of the 'cheap' zonal IMs has proven that they are deserving of the title.
Just because Egypt may have done it does not mean it should be condoned or encouraged.
As for the IM titles at the first Gold Coast Zonal one of them has never had a FIDE rating remotely close to 2400.



As for it somehow being easy to get a title at a zonal, that is hardly the case. I played in the last zonal held on the Gold Coast (yes, there was one there AFTER the infamous one - the one which Gluzman won in a playoff from Chapman) and scored 5/9, yet I came away title-less due to tiebreaks. Yes, if FIDE hadn't changed the rules I would have a title, but they did - why? - to tighten up the rules ... to maintain some prestige for the title!
For properly constituted zonals the orginal rules appeared to work ok.
They tightened the rules because of the abuse of the regulations by the Gold Coast Zonal.



Bill, you seem to be often blinded by numbers. Yes, you do an excellent job as ratings officer, but they are not the be all and end all of chess tournaments. What are the chances of Ian Rogers losing the first round of the Doeberl Cup to a player rated 600 points below him (Damanoj Dragicevic)? Pretty low ... but it happened. What are the chances of a FIDE unrated player (Ronald Yu), rated around 500 ACF points below the top seed (David Smerdon) tying for first with that player, including winning their individual game and going undefeated in the tournament, in the inaugural Australian Young Masters? Pretty low ... but it happened.
I'm aware of the stats and that upsets can happen.
Maybe my 2200 FIDE was a little high, but I still believe there should be some sort of reasonable minimum standard. Under 2100 ACF doesnt cut the cake in my opinion.
You are of course free to disagree. ;)


Lets face facts ... the chances of one of these 'non-elite' sub-2200 players winning the event and qualifying for the World Championships is fairly remote, however who are we to begrudge someone who has an outstanding tournament from being rewarded accordingly.
Its more the case of allowing "cannon fodder" to participate. The more "cannon fodder" the easier it is for the non titled players to get to the magical 50%. Then its a crap shoot as to who benefits and gets the FM title's on offer depending on tiebreak.


Sometimes these sub-2200 players can actually play good games of chess ... you'd be amazed!
I'm well aware of that.
Thats why the NSWCA Council let some U2000 play in the NSW Championship. ;)


As for the complaints about the FIDE rated events that Graeme runs, they are not there simply to generate extra FIDE ratings on the Gold Coast (although when unrated players have good tournaments, that is one effect), but they are there to give players a chance at playing a strong chess event - a change from the usual club or weekender chess that has the potential to suffer from either the familiarity factor, or the yo-yo effect. Again, to take someone as an example, look at the rise of Moulthun Ly on the Gold Coast. He's an extremely talented young player, but if he did not have the opportunity to compete against players in events like those run by Graeme, do you think he would be quite as strong as he is now?
I might be wrong but I believe his star was on the rise before he played in one of Graham's FIDE rated events.


The zonals will never (in my opinion anyway) become an event that is dominated by sub-2000 players, so I think these fears that some of you hold for the event to be completely unfounded.
Since swisses are not designed for the middle placings (50% isnt a score at the top) then the more lower rated players there are the more the middle placings become pot luck. A player truly deserving of the FM title could miss out because of the luck of the draw due to too many low rated players being in the event.
Being allowed to play just because you put together the entry fee should not be an option.


To use another game as an example, if I had the money, I could play in the world poker championship ... no qualification necessary ... just turn up with the money. Is there a problem in the poker world because of it? No, because there is skill involved in the game, so that although you might occasionally have some unheralded player making it to the end, more often than not, its the established elite that win such events. I can't see that chess would be much different ... and there is a qualification system involved to boot!
I dont think poker is a good example.
After all as far I know you are not awarding titles (similar to IM or FM) to the competitors based on their results.

arosar
27-08-2004, 09:33 AM
I'm with Brian on this one.

Of course you are. He's your mate, ain't he?


Of the IMs, I think every one of the 'cheap' zonal IMs has proven that they are deserving of the title.

And of course you'd say that. They're your mates, aren't they?


To use another game as an example, if I had the money, I could play in the world poker championship ... no qualification necessary ... just turn up with the money. Is there a problem in the poker world because of it? No, because there is skill involved in the game, so that although you might occasionally have some unheralded player making it to the end, more often than not, its the established elite that win such events.

For a barrister you make a stupid argument. Poker is gambling. If you've got the dough, you're in - you said it, "just turn up with the money". Why would anyone care if you're a novice?

And what skill in poker are you talkin' about? To read that the other guy poking his nose means he's got a royal flush? Come on man!

AR

jenni
27-08-2004, 09:45 AM
I am with Kerry and Brian - in fact I am hoping to have Shannon and Gareth play in them. I know the Songs are planning to take Ray and Angela and there is a possibility that Junta Ikeda will go.

I wasn't too sure whether my kids should play or not and checked with Ian Rogers. He felt it was very suitable for them.

arosar
27-08-2004, 09:52 AM
I am with Kerry and Brian - in fact I am hoping to have Shannon and Gareth play in them.

S'cuse us!! What the . . . ???

Why don't you just bloody give FIDE a ring and see if you can be ring-in at the next World Championships?

Oh no, wait, hang on a sec . . . give Quintero a ring and ask if youse all can play in Linares. And don't stop there. There's the A event in Wijk.

Sheesh!!

AR

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 12:11 PM
If we continue with this crap it would not surprise me if FIDE stripped Oceania of a Zonal Qualifier all together.
It would serve us right for acting like a bunch of clowns.

jenni
27-08-2004, 01:08 PM
I suspect they don't take Oceania too seriously anyway.

jenni
27-08-2004, 01:49 PM
S'cuse us!! What the . . . ???

Why don't you just bloody give FIDE a ring and see if you can be ring-in at the next World Championships?

Oh no, wait, hang on a sec . . . give Quintero a ring and ask if youse all can play in Linares. And don't stop there. There's the A event in Wijk.

Sheesh!!

AR

Umm?? I am going to take Ian Rogers and Gary Lane's advice, or AR's. Gosh!! Such a hard decision.....

arosar
27-08-2004, 03:22 PM
Umm?? I am going to take Ian Rogers and Gary Lane's advice, or AR's. Gosh!! Such a hard decision.....

So you accept Rogers' and Lane's words as gospel then? We respect those two gentlemen - but there is no reason why we shouldn't subject their opinions to scrutiny. If they really support the idea of a laughable zonal, just as it was in the big Gold Coast Joke, then it is not only the Australian chess community who will laugh at them but the whole world.

We say unto you, loud and clear, that what you are doing is a joke.

AR

Kerry Stead
27-08-2004, 03:26 PM
If we continue with this crap it would not surprise me if FIDE stripped Oceania of a Zonal Qualifier all together.
It would serve us right for acting like a bunch of clowns.

So who out of Wohl, Feldman, Gluzman & Johansen has NOT been a good representative for Oceania?

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 03:32 PM
So who out of Wohl, Feldman, Gluzman & Johansen has NOT been a good representative for Oceania?
I'm not criticising the winners.
I'm criticising the organisers for devaluing the zonal by allowing anyone to play.

jenni
27-08-2004, 03:37 PM
So you accept Rogers' and Lane's words as gospel then? AR

When it comes to chess isues - yes!

arosar
27-08-2004, 03:46 PM
When it comes to chess isues - yes!

This is hardly a prudent approach.

What if they said, "Australia should no longer send a team to the World Youths. It's a waste"?

AR

Kerry Stead
27-08-2004, 04:30 PM
I'm not criticising the winners.
I'm criticising the organisers for devaluing the zonal by allowing anyone to play.

So its Graeme Gardiner's fault, eh?
How are events like this supposed to happen if people don't organise them?
You have to start somewhere you realise ... and the tournament in question has, by your own admission, always produced a deserving winner. Yes, there were problems with titles being awarded in the first one, but those problems have been corrected and are, in my opinion at least, not problems at all. So what is the problem?

As for Amiel's suggestion that the event is a joke, the only one that could be called anything like a joke was the first one, and that experience can not be repeated due to the rule changes. As for players like Gareth and Shannon Oliver, Raymong and Angela Song and Junta Ikeda playing in the event, I don't think any of them seriously expects to win the event. They are doing it to better themselves as chess players. Is there anything wrong with that? The big difference between the top players and those who aren't quite there yet is often one of consistency. I'm sure you saw Gareth's draw against Ian Rogers at ANU - that's a good achievement. The thing that differentiates someone like Gareth from someone like Ian is that Ian is far more consistent at beating players around (or below) his rating than Gareth. Yes, someone like Gareth (as with someone like Raymond) can have a good result or two against a top player - the difference is how often they do it.
I'll make a bold prediction now for you Amiel - Gareth Oliver, if he plays in the 2005 Oceania Zonal, will not win the event. I'll even make a further prediction - the winner of the event will be rated in the top 20 Australian players.

arosar
27-08-2004, 04:58 PM
As for players like Gareth and Shannon Oliver, Raymong and Angela Song and Junta Ikeda playing in the event, I don't think any of them seriously expects to win the event.

FMD! Helloooo . . . !! What's the point of being in it then? Oh yeah . . . that's right: a holiday for the rich!


They are doing it to better themselves as chess players.

Spend your money on a coach, why don't ya? Jesus Christ.

Look mate, you're a top bloke. Very smart - a barrister and all that. But get this into your thick skull OK. Zonals are to select our WC rep. It's not some goddam.n clubmed playground for the rich kids.


Gareth Oliver, if he plays in the 2005 Oceania Zonal, will not win the event. I'll even make a further prediction - the winner of the event will be rated in the top 20 Australian players.

Well duh! How about making the prediction that Gareth will win?

Can't you see the wrongness of your position? If you're not in it to win it - don't be in it.

AR

jenni
27-08-2004, 05:00 PM
This is hardly a prudent approach.

What if they said, "Australia should no longer send a team to the World Youths. It's a waste"?

AR

I am sure if they said that, they would have good reason!

The thing is if you are a chess cripple like me, you rely on people like Ian and Gary to give you advice. I've known them for years now and I turn to them often for advice on this sort of thing.

Incidentally Shannon (and Angela) would obviously play the women's - neither of them would be embarrassed at their level of play in that.

auriga
27-08-2004, 05:10 PM
What you forget Mr Rosary is that the kiwis have organised similar events before and they aint all zonals! I think Raymond has played in Auckland before and did good! Also there were heaps of kiwi juniors who beat good adults and the foreign GM came second! Why dont you play in Auckland Mr Rosary - you could stay on after your trip to Wanganui!

arosar
27-08-2004, 05:13 PM
Why dont you play in Auckland Mr Rosary - you could stay on after your trip to Wanganui!

Yeah...that's the plan. I saw a special on Auckland on a travel show. Beautiful place. Might take the tranzscenic. You in NZ? If you are I need to talk to you.

AR

Kerry Stead
27-08-2004, 05:23 PM
FMD! Helloooo . . . !! What's the point of being in it then? Oh yeah . . . that's right: a holiday for the rich!

So if only people who seriously expected to win events played in them, do you think something like the Australian Championship would have any more than maybe 5 or 6 entrants? What about other 'lesser' events?


Spend your money on a coach, why don't ya? Jesus Christ.

Look mate, you're a top bloke. Very smart - a barrister and all that. But get this into your thick skull OK. Zonals are to select our WC rep. It's not some goddam.n clubmed playground for the rich kids.

Have you thought that a coach can only take you so far ... you actually need somewhere to put any coaching to the test. Lets take Gareth as an example - where is he supposed to get tough opposition to play against? Yes, Doeberl & ANU Open are tough tournaments, but surely you need more than 2 per year. Australian Open/Championship/Junior is definitely one, but what's wrong with playing in others ... like ... dare I say it ... the Zonal?

Yes, the primary purpose is to select the WC rep ... but does that mean that players who aren't going to be the WC rep should be excluded?


Well duh! How about making the prediction that Gareth will win?

Can't you see the wrongness of your position? If you're not in it to win it - don't be in it.

AR

I'm not going to predict Gareth will win the event, because I don't think he will.

Its not that I don't understand your position - you consider this an elite event that should only be the realm of the elite. How does the next generation of the elite become such if they aren't able to have a go at such things? You never know ... Gareth might surprise people ... or he might not. Do you think many of the top players in this country got to where they are now without playing events where they were 'out of their depth' when they were developing? Think about it from the other perspective ...

jenni
27-08-2004, 05:31 PM
FMD! Helloooo . . . !! What's the point of being in it then? Oh yeah . . . that's right: a holiday for the rich!
AR

If Junta goes, one thing I am sure of is that he is not a rich kid!

However his parents have always been prepared to make huge personal sacrifices (without making a fuss about it), in order to allow him to progress as a player.

I was involved in helping them fund Junta's trip to the World youth last year and I know just how hard it was for them - so don't slang off against people just because they are easy targets. :evil:

arosar
27-08-2004, 05:41 PM
How does the next generation of the elite become such if they aren't able to have a go at such things?

They have to slug it out amongst the rabble and work their way up.

AR

arosar
27-08-2004, 05:42 PM
If Junta goes, one thing I am sure of is that he is not a rich kid!


That's one thing I notice about you Mrs Oliver: you shelter behind the 'poor' to assuage your own conscience.

AR

jenni
27-08-2004, 05:52 PM
That's one thing I notice about you Mrs Oliver: you shelter behind the 'poor' to assuage your own conscience.

AR

No I don't - I can't defend myself so I don't try. I don't consider myself "rich", but I can't argue that I am not probably better off than a lot of other people.

However it seriously pisses me off when people whom I know are really struggling to give their kids opportunities, get lumped in with me and categorised as rich, just so you can have an easy target. You've done it a number of times and I will continue to point it out each time!

jenni
27-08-2004, 05:58 PM
That's one thing I notice about you Mrs Oliver: you shelter behind the 'poor' to assuage your own conscience.

AR

I don't have a conscience about this. I arrived in Australia with a backpack, containing a few clothes and some Uni books and about $500 (my entire assets in the world).

Any money I have made, I have done honestly and through hard work, so actually I am not ashamed of anything.

I have a small company, I pay good wages, paid maternity leave and actually I think my staff really like me. Why would I have a conscience?

If I choose to spend my money on my kids, rather than drinking, smoking or gambling - it might make me a boring person, but surely my affair.

arosar
27-08-2004, 06:05 PM
Yes, OK...OK...Geez...don't get all worked up about it.

The point is right - we're talkin' about a bloody zonal. Do you understand the significance of a zonal? I think the problem here is that we've been so isolated that we've actually forgotten. So, perhaps it is time to get back to the rest of Asia so we can dispense with your BS of having 'not-so-strong' players playing in the event.

Btw, must we still be surprised that it's the same clique of junior mafiosi who are pushing for this?

AR

jenni
27-08-2004, 06:15 PM
. So, perhaps it is time to get back to the rest of Asia


Actually I don't think they wanted us..... :)


Btw, must we still be surprised that it's the same clique of junior mafiosi who are pushing for this?
AR


I don't think we are "pushing" for it at all. We are taking advantage of an already existing opportunity. No junior person has had input into the decisions that allow strong juniors to play in the zonals.

However one of the things really holding Australia juniors back (and thus the next generation of strong players), is the lack of strong competition.

The European juniors have it all over our kids, because they can play in competitions as strong as the zonal every month - our kids (as Kerry has pointed out), get a tiny number of opportunities.

Garvinator
27-08-2004, 06:27 PM
im lost. There are alot of tournaments available for decent competition for second level players.

Between the leading events in australia, there are plenty of tournaments available.

Lets see- the top ten weekenders, australian reserves, australian open, Nceg events, victorian open just for starters.

Why is a zonal tournament required to be all in (roughly). I have already said that the zonal should be elite. Perhaps instead of using a zonal, another tournament is created for this purpose.

arosar
27-08-2004, 06:29 PM
Spot on gray!!

Anyways, boys and gal . . . it's a Friday night and all this typing has got me thirsty. So have a good weekend and see some of youse at the State on Sunday.

All the best . . .

AR

peanbrain
27-08-2004, 07:51 PM
Between the leading events in australia, there are plenty of tournaments available.

Lets see- the top ten weekenders, australian reserves, australian open, Nceg events, victorian open just for starters..

Oh yes, you just couldn't resist talking about your crappy open at mt-nowhere don't you?!

Let me see, its the choice of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere for two weeks and paying $60 (share twin) or going to new zealand for and paying about the same rate per night for just one week. Not to mention I get to play much stronger field. Gee that must be hard choice - for one eyed man like you. :hmm:


I have already said that the zonal should be elite.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it's true. why should it be "elite"?!

peanbrain
27-08-2004, 07:53 PM
They have to slug it out amongst the rabble and work their way up.

AR

hey AR is that why you still hanging around 1600s and trying to work your way up?! :lol:

Kerry Stead
28-08-2004, 01:45 AM
im lost. There are alot of tournaments available for decent competition for second level players.

Between the leading events in australia, there are plenty of tournaments available.

Lets see- the top ten weekenders, australian reserves, australian open, Nceg events, victorian open just for starters.

Why is a zonal tournament required to be all in (roughly). I have already said that the zonal should be elite. Perhaps instead of using a zonal, another tournament is created for this purpose.

But you see, that's the point ... they might currently be what you consider to be 'second level' players ... but they're looking to move on from that!

Yes, an event like Doeberl or Ballarat (for example) can give improving players (lets just run with juniors for the time being) the chance to play strong opposition, however in all likelihood, it would only be 2-3 games per tournament at most!
As Jenni has pointed out, when kids go overseas to events such as the World Juniors, the 'easy' games that they might get in a weekender are few and far between. How are they supposed to get accustomed to a tournament that has 11 tough games for them without playing in tournaments where they know they will actually get 7 or 9 or 11 tough games? Yes, an Australian Junior or Open or Reserves might provide a few tough games, but there always seems to be an 'easy' game or two that finds its way into the mix. Something like that would rarely happen at a zonal ... for the very reason that a lot of the players that are there are there to win it ... and those that aren't are there for a serious hit-out against top quality opposition - its not the type of tournament you play for a 'holiday'. In fact, if you wanted a holiday, why would you have it alongside a chess tournament, or at the very least something that isn't a weekender?
The tournament is not as 'all in' as you suggest. Yes, if you have the money for the entry fee you can play in the event, but if you are not going to take the event seriously, why fork out such dollars when you can get just as good a hit-out at a weekender, and as other players may not be taking it as seriously also, you might even be abelt o win a game or two.
By all means, if there was another tournament created that served such a purpose, then there would be plenty of up-and-coming juniors looking to play in it, however unless you plan on organising the event yourself, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get a tournament where the elite were playing, up-and-comers were playing, as well as those just outside the elite ... unless of course you found lots of money to entice the elite players to play!

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 02:35 AM
thanks for the info.also can anyone play or do you have to apply .in the newsletter there is a deadly of 20 sept

That deadline is for applications to be official representatives. You do not need to be official representatives to play, but official representatives get free accommodation. Gary Bekker has just advised me that in this instance the free accommodation from NZCF is shared accommodation.

The deadline is 10 Sept not 20 Sept.

The following are my personal views only on the zonal issues in this thread:

I tend to agree with Kerry that this is (more or less) a non-issue, albeit with somewhat perverse reasoning in my case. Firstly the zonal is the qualifier for the FIDE "world championship", an event which sacrifices the ability to accurately determine the best player hugely (and in my often-stated view, unacceptably) in the interests of a greater degree of inclusiveness. In the case of the Oceania zonal something similar is observed, but the extent to which the winner-picking function is compromised is lower.

I suggest that the energies of those concerned about getting our best possible player to the FIDE knockout might be better directed to establishing exactly why Australia's #1 player (who would have a serious chance of progressing beyond the first round of the knockout) does not play in these events, and determining whether anything that is both reasonable and effective can be done to remedy this situation.

The "dodgy" titles fiasco in the first zonal was indeed an embarrassment to Australian chess but that has been repaired, and I do not see anything dodgy about the titles gained since, except to the degree that the FIDE practice of awarding titles on a single tournament just because it is a "zonal" is dubious.

Rhubarb
30-08-2004, 03:34 AM
Does anyone with a Kiwi connection know what the entry fees are for players not automatically nominated by their federation? I believe it's generally done on a sliding scale according to FIDE rating.

In one way, this is basically a hint that only serious contenders need apply; in another way, it sends the positive message to all chessplayers, anywhere, that there exists the opportunity - the dream, the pathway - to become (FIDE) World Champion if they have the skill.

Brian_Jones
30-08-2004, 08:51 AM
Entry fees (Open) in NZ$ before 15/1/05

2400+ Free
2350+ $100
2300+ $150
2250+ $175
2200+ $200
2100+ $225
2000+ $250
1800+ $275
Unrated $300

Rhubarb
30-08-2004, 05:11 PM
Thanks Brian, I couldn't find this on the NZ Chess site.

Candy-Cane
15-12-2004, 02:53 PM
Is it too late to enter the zonals or not?

jenni
15-12-2004, 04:07 PM
No it is not too late to enter - entries after 15 January incur a 20% surcharge.

website for registration is

http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/Registration.htm

I know they would like some more female players. :)

Matthew Sonter
25-12-2004, 10:09 PM
Merry Christmas everyone :D

Just wondering if anybody traveling to the Zonal is interested in sharing accomodation costs...$105 (+ GST!) a night is a little steep for me. Apparently there are some places nearby going for about $70 bucks a night, I'm going to do some (belated) research regarding this now.

Anyone who's interested can drop me a line at sonterm@hotmail.com

...if not, then I suppose I'll just have to shell out!

eclectic
25-12-2004, 11:30 PM
No it is not too late to enter - entries after 15 January incur a 20% surcharge.

website for registration is

http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/Registration.htm

I know they would like some more female players. :)

Does Publisher have a Reader like Acrobat does or do I download a trial version of it from Microsoft?

:wall:

m

Bill Gletsos
26-12-2004, 12:36 AM
Does Publisher have a Reader like Acrobat does or do I download a trial version of it from Microsoft?

:wall:

m
As far as I know there is no reader.

Also there is no downloadable trial version. :wall:
You can however order a trial CD from Microsoft. :whistle:

They really should have converted it to a pdf. :doh:

jenni
26-12-2004, 12:17 PM
If you go to the Oceania website

http://www.auschess.org.au/oceania/index.htm


Page down a bit, until you come to the zonal, you can view the entry form in PDF.

eclectic
26-12-2004, 04:09 PM
If you go to the Oceania website

http://www.auschess.org.au/oceania/index.htm


Page down a bit, until you come to the zonal, you can view the entry form in PDF.

Thanks Jenni,

I had a feeling it would be somwhere in PDF.

m

auriga
27-01-2005, 01:50 PM
time to dig out the zonal thread as its starting this sun?!
looks to be large turnout (76 or so)!

jenni
27-01-2005, 08:58 PM
Seems quite well organised - we leave tomorrow morning for NZ.

eclectic
27-01-2005, 09:25 PM
time to dig out the zonal thread as its starting this sun?!
looks to be large turnout (76 or so)!

Can someone in the know please fill me in as to why there is a large number of countries in zone 3a but not in zone 3b (our zone).

My cursory reading of the zonal rules seemed to indicate that each country can only provide a maximum of 5 candidates unless it is itself a zone.

Perhaps for these purposes "Oceania" is considered a country or else 76 wouldn't be competing.

Is it one IM title to the winner or for all who score better then 66.67%?

Mark

Lucena
27-01-2005, 11:26 PM
Well, here I am with 5 hours left till I leave for the airport. Hopefully I will remember to take the scissors out of my bag this time. I still have to get some money deposited into my account so I can use my debit card in NZ, AUD7.56 won't get me very far...

Garvinator
27-01-2005, 11:38 PM
Well, here I am with 5 hours left till I leave for the airport. Hopefully I will remember to take the scissors out of my bag this time. I still have to get some money deposited into my account so I can use my debit card in NZ, AUD7.56 won't get me very far...
a six am flight, ouch :doh: would $A7 get you out of the airport? :eek:

eclectic
30-01-2005, 09:51 AM
Will be zonal be having any relays?

Mark

eclectic
30-01-2005, 10:14 AM
Will be zonal be having any relays?

Mark

ICC is covering it, starting in 1 hr and 45 minutes.

(I thought they would be too busy with Corus and the like but it is in an "off peak" time zone :rolleyes: )

Mark

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 11:27 AM
Hopefully the website for the zonal will post both the draw and the results for the rounds in a timely manner.

Lucena
30-01-2005, 06:00 PM
Hear, hear Bill.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 06:59 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 1
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [0] .5:.5 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [0]
2 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [0] 1:0 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [0]
3 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [0] 0:1 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [0]
4 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [0] 1:0 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [0]
5 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [0] 0:1 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [0]
6 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [0] 1:0 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [0]
7 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [0] 0:1 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [0]
8 Xie, George AUS 2359 [0] 1:0 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [0]
9 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [0] 0:1 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [0]
10 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [0] .5:.5 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [0]
11 Van Rennen, Mike AUS 2060 [0] 1:0 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [0]
12 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [0] 1:0 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [0]
13 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [0] 0:1 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [0]
14 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [0] 1:0 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [0]
15 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [0] 0:1 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [0]
16 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [0] .5:.5 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [0]
17 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [0] 0:1 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [0]
18 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [0] 1:0 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [0]
19 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [0] 0:1 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [0]
20 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [0] 1:0 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [0]
21 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [0] 0:1 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [0]
22 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [0] 1:0 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0]
23 Kalisch, Tom AUS [0] 0:1 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [0]
24 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [0] 0:1 Lin, Zhigen AUS [0]
25 Davis, Tony AUS [0] .5:.5 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [0]
26 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [0] 1:0 Booth, Tony NZL [0]
27 Stone, Andrew NZL [0] 0:1 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [0]
28 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [0] 1:0 Maroroa, Temu NZL [0]
29 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] 0:1 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [0]
30 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [0] 1:0 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0]

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 06:59 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 1
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [0] 1:0 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [0]
2 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [0] 0:1 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [0]
3 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [0] 0:1 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [0]
4 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [0] 0:1 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [0]
5 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [0] 0:1 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [0]
6 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [0] 0:1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [0]
7 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [0] 1:0 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [0]
8 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [0] 0:1 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [0]
9 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [0] 1:0 BYE

by Swiss Perfect (TM) www.swissperfect.com

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 07:00 PM
Note the links for the results for the Open Zonal currently dont work on the website.

Correct link for round 1 is http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round1o.htm

Correct link for round 2 is http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round2o.htm

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 07:02 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 2
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1] : Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [1]
2 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [1] : Green, Peter NZL 2258 [1]
3 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1] : Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [1]
4 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [1] : Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1]
5 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [1] : Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [1]
6 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [1] : Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1]
7 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [1] : Xie, George AUS 2359 [1]
8 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [1] : Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [1]
9 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [1] : Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [1]
10 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [1] : Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [1]
11 Lin, Zhigen AUS [1] : Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [1]
12 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [1] : Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1]
13 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [1] : Van Rennen, Mike AUS 2060 [1]
14 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [.5] : Davis, Tony AUS [.5]
15 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [.5] : Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [.5]
16 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5] : Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [.5]
17 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [.5] : Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [.5]
18 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [0] : Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [0]
19 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [0] : Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [0]
20 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [0] : Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [0]
21 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [0] : Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [0]
22 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [0] : Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [0]
23 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0] : Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [0]
24 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [0] : Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [0]
25 Booth, Tony NZL [0] : Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [0]
26 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [0] : Kalisch, Tom AUS [0]
27 Maroroa, Temu NZL [0] : Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [0]
28 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [0] : Stone, Andrew NZL [0]
29 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0] : Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [0]
30 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [0] : Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]




2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 2
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [1] : Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [1]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [1] : Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [1]
3 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [1] : Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1]
4 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [1] : Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1]
5 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1] : Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [0]
6 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [0] : Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [0]
7 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [0] : Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [0]
8 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [0] : Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [0]
9 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [0] 1:0 BYE

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 07:06 PM
Competitive index for those males who have a rating published above (and discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1 ..... 268


starter

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 07:10 PM
Competitive index for those males who have a rating published above (and discsrding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1 ..... 268
Must you post this rubbish in here.
Cant you keep it in your so called "competitive thread"

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 07:20 PM
Bill
I will put a summary there at the end of the last round.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 07:25 PM
Bill
I will put a summary there at the end of the last round.
Why not just put it there now.
Those that are interested if any can view it there.

DoroPhil
31-01-2005, 09:42 AM
Is this tournament going to be rated by Acf?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 09:52 AM
Is this tournament going to be rated by Acf?
Lets just say I've requested the SP files from the Chief Arbiter.

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 09:58 AM
^^
hi Phil

Are you here or there mate?

Just checking.


starter

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 10:14 AM
Why not just put it there now.
Those that are interested if any can view it there.
Efficiency Bill. Efficiency.
The ZONAL will be the hot thread for a while.

pax
31-01-2005, 12:11 PM
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1] .5:.5 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [1]
2 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [1] 1:0 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [1]
3 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1] 0:1 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [1]
4 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [1] .5:.5 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1]
5 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [1] 0:1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [1]
6 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [1] 1:0 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1]
7 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [1] 0:1 Xie, George AUS 2359 [1]
8 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [1] 1:0 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [1]
9 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [1] 0:1 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [1]
10 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [1] 1:0 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [1]
11 Lin, Zhigen AUS [1] .5:.5 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [1]
12 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [1] 1:0 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1]
13 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [1] 1:0 Van Rennen, Mike AUS 2060 [1]
14 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [.5] 1:0 Davis, Tony AUS [.5]
15 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [.5] .5:.5 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [.5]
16 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5] 0:1 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [.5]
17 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [.5] .5:.5 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [.5]
18 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [0] 1:0 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [0]
19 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [0] 0:1 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [0]
20 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [0] 1:0 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [0]
21 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [0] .5:.5 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [0]
22 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [0] .5:.5 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [0]
23 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0] 0:1 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [0]
24 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [0] 0:1 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [0]
25 Booth, Tony NZL [0] 0:1 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [0]
26 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [0] 0:1 Kalisch, Tom AUS [0]
27 Maroroa, Temu NZL [0] 1:0 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [0]
28 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [0] 1:0 Stone, Andrew NZL [0]
29 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0] 0:1 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [0]
30 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [0] 1:0 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]

pax
31-01-2005, 12:12 PM
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [1] 0:1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [1]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [1] 1:0 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [1]
3 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [1] .5:.5 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1]
4 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [1] 1:0 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1]
5 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1] 0:1 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [0]
6 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [0] 0:1 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [0]
7 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [0] .5:.5 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [0]
8 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [0] .5:.5 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [0]
9 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [0] 1:0 BYE

pax
31-01-2005, 01:37 PM
And so the real contests begin..



No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [2] : Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [2]
2 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [2] : Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [2]
3 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [2] : Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2]
4 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [2] : Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [2]
5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [2] : Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [2]
6 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1.5] : Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [1.5]
7 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [1.5] : Lin, Zhigen AUS [1.5]
8 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [1.5] : Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [1.5]
9 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [1.5] : McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1.5]
10 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [1] : Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1]
11 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [1] : Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [1]
12 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [1] : Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [1]
13 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [1] : Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1]
14 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1] : Cronan, James AUS 2053 [1]
15 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [1] : Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [1]
16 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [1] : Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [1]
17 Van Rennen, Mike AUS 2060 [1] : Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [1]
18 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [1] : Maroroa, Temu NZL [1]
19 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [1] : Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [1]
20 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [1] : Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [1]
21 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1] : Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [1]
22 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1] : Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [.5]
23 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [.5] : Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5]
24 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [.5] : Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [.5]
25 Davis, Tony AUS [.5] : Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [0]
26 Stone, Andrew NZL [0] : Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [0]
27 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [0] : Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0]
28 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [0] : Booth, Tony NZL [0]
29 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [0] : Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] : Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [0]

pax
31-01-2005, 01:38 PM
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [2] : Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [2]
2 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1.5] : Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [2]
3 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [1] : Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [1.5]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [1] : Gao, Judy (16) NZL [1]
5 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [1] : Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1]
6 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1] : Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [1]
7 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [.5] : Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [.5]
8 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [.5] : Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [.5]
9 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [0] 1:0 BYE

pax
31-01-2005, 01:47 PM
Does anyone know the schedule? Round times would be useful for those intending to watch the live coverage?

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 01:58 PM
>If you do not want to know the score, look away now.<
Competitive index for those males who have a rating published above (and discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-3 ..... 268, 173, 123


starter

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 02:02 PM
And so the real contests begin..



Bill, what do you think of pax's view on the first two rounds?

starter

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:06 PM
Monday 31st
Round 2 10am
Round 3 5pm

Tuesday 1st
Round 4 10am
Round 5 5pm

Wednesday 2nd
Round 6 10am
Lightning 5pm

Thursday 3rd
Round 7 10am
Round 8 5pm

Friday 4th
Round 9 10am
Playoffs 4pm

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:07 PM
Bill, what do you think of pax's view on the first two rounds?

starter
If real contests were not happening in the first 2 rounds then the higher rateds would have won every game.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:15 PM
Programme can be viewed here (http://www.nzchess.co.nz/)
That link is next to useless as far as the round times are concerned.

pax
31-01-2005, 02:21 PM
Bill, what do you think of pax's view on the first two rounds?

starter

Would you get off that horse already?

Don't presume to know my view on the first two rounds..

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:24 PM
Would you get off that horse already?

Don't presume to know my view on the first two rounds..
My thoughts exactly.

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 02:35 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Bill

I can only guess at what you guys are surmising.

Let me try one
> The Zonal is well attended with highly rated players because of the qualifier opportunity, not the prize-money?

starter

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:45 PM
Bill

I can only guess at what you guys are surmising.
Dont play stupid.

Your were trying to imply that pax was implying that the first two rounds were not competitve and thus he was somehow supporting your view with regards competitive index's.

pax
31-01-2005, 03:42 PM
Bill

I can only guess at what you guys are surmising.

Let me try one
> The Zonal is well attended with highly rated players because of the qualifier opportunity, not the prize-money?

starter

Eh? Would you please stop trying to put words in my mouth?

Libby
31-01-2005, 06:05 PM
Round 2 results are up

Open http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round2o.htm

Women http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round2w.htm

Guess they plugged in all their computers ;)

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 06:14 PM
Round 2 results are up

Open http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round2o.htm

Women http://www.globalchessenterprises.co.nz/round2w.htm

Guess they plugged in all their computers ;)
Thanks Libby but they were already listed by pax back in posts #94 & #95.

Libby
31-01-2005, 06:18 PM
Thanks Libby but they were already listed by pax back in posts #94 & #95.

well there you go. See that as a hazard of trawling through a whole bunch of these (very, very boring) he said/he said/no he didn't/I win/no you didn't/mine's bigger than yours - arguments on the thread. I had a quick scan and missed the important bits.

But links never hurt anyway :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 07:13 PM
well there you go. See that as a hazard of trawling through a whole bunch of these (very, very boring) he said/he said/no he didn't/I win/no you didn't/mine's bigger than yours - arguments on the thread. I had a quick scan and missed the important bits.
Yes, all the more reason for starter not to put his competitive index rubbish here.


But links never hurt anyway :rolleyes:
True.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 07:14 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 3
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [2] .5:.5 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [2]
2 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [2] 1:0 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [2]
3 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [2] 1:0 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2]
4 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [2] 1:0 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [2]
5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [2] .5:.5 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [2]
6 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1.5] 0:1 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [1.5]
7 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [1.5] 1:0 Lin, Zhigen AUS [1.5]
8 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [1.5] .5:.5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [1.5]
9 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [1.5] 1:0 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1.5]
10 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [1] 1:0 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1]
11 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [1] .5:.5 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [1]
12 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [1] 1:0 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [1]
13 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [1] 1:0 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1]
14 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1] .5:.5 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [1]
15 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [1] 0:1 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [1]
16 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [1] 1:0 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [1]
17 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1] .5:.5 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [1]
18 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [1] 1:0 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1]
19 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [1] 0:1 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [1]
20 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [1] 1:0 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [1]
21 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1] 0:1 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [1]
22 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1] 0:1 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [.5]
23 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [.5] 1:0 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5]
24 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [.5] 1:0 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [.5]
25 Davis, Tony AUS [.5] 0:1 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [0]
26 Stone, Andrew NZL [0] 0:1 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [0]
27 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [0] 1:0 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0]
28 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [0] 1:0 Booth, Tony NZL [0]
29 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [0] 1:0 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] 0:1 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [0]

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 07:15 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 3
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [2] .5:.5 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [2]
2 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1.5] 0:1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [2]
3 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [1] .5:.5 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [1.5]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [1] 1:0 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [1]
5 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [1] 1:0 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1]
6 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1] 0:1 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [1]
7 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [.5] 1:0 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [.5]
8 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [.5] 1:0 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [.5]
9 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [0] 1:0 BYE

WhiteElephant
31-01-2005, 07:32 PM
IM Title coming Bjelobrk's way. About Time!

:clap:

pax
31-01-2005, 07:46 PM
IM Title coming Bjelobrk's way. About Time!

:clap:

Last time I checked it was a nine round event ;-)

He still needs 3 more points, and to beat all the non-IM's. Can you say George Xie?

WhiteElephant
31-01-2005, 07:50 PM
Last time I checked it was a nine round event ;-)

He still needs 3 more points, and to beat all the non-IM's. Can you say George Xie?

Heh I am a bit over excited...hope Igor gets it as I think he deserves it. George Xie definitely a good chance too :-)

pax
31-01-2005, 07:51 PM
Heh I am a bit over excited...hope Igor gets it as I think he deserves it. George Xie definitely a good chance too :-)

I imagine both will get the title sooner or later.

eclectic
31-01-2005, 07:59 PM
IM Title coming Bjelobrk's way. About Time!

:clap:

Hello WhiteElephant.

Don't clap yet.

The final results are still not in.

Should he win, he might feel the need to win a few high level tourneys afterwards to prove to cynics he deserves it.

I know you can get the IM title in itself here... no need for 2 or 3 title norms or the like ... but I recall the derision from some circles when FIDE first gave this concession as a way of help chess "develop" in certain areas.

Food for thought ... purely hypothetical

If I had decided to turn up to Wellington with a 1249 ACF rating and no FIDE rating and had miraculously won the zonal would there have been congratulations extended to me from all quarters?

Bull Sh*t!!

I'd most likely have been subjected to a battery of IOC type drug tests.
There would have been howls of protests: " He doesn't deserve this title with only 9 rated games" ... and don't forget, Brian Jones and/or Global Chess Enterprises did turn this into an "open".

In another thread starter asked why such a high quality field has turned up there. Barring Darryl and the already established IMs the most likely reason is because it's the lazy way to get an IM title.

I asked somewhere else (perhaps earlier in this thread) why there are so many countries in zone 3a as compared to the minnow pond of zone 3b.

Did anyone reply?

Should I be cynical here ... Can't someone devise a way for Australia to get "cheap" GM titles instead?

Mark.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 08:11 PM
and don't forget, Brian Jones and/or Global Chess Enterprises did turn this into an "open".
The Oceania Zonal has been an "open" ever since Graeme Gardiner ran the first one back in 1999.

However how exactly did Brian Jones turn either this particular Oceania zonal or any of the previous Oceania zonals into an "open".

shaun
31-01-2005, 08:16 PM
Xie and Bjelobrk were my tips for the IM norm from this event, although of course only one can be awarded for scoring 66%. It should be remembered that both these players were also 1 game away from an IM norm at the Australian Open with George needing a win (in Rd 10) and Igor only needing a draw (in Rd 9). Of course a dark horse like Depasquale or McLaren could suprise everyone.

ursogr8
31-01-2005, 09:11 PM
<snip>

In another thread starter asked why such a high quality field has turned up there.
<snip>
Mark.

But I didn't phrase it as well as you.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 10:53 PM
Rounf 4 draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 4
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [3] : Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [3]
2 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [2.5] : Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [3]
3 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [2.5] : Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [2.5]
4 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [2.5] : Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [2.5]
5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [2.5] : Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [2.5]
6 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [2] : Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [2]
7 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [2] : Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2]
8 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [2] : Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [2]
9 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [2] : Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2]
10 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2] : Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [2]
11 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [2] : Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [2]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [2] : Green, Peter NZL 2258 [2]
13 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [1.5] : Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [1.5]
14 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1.5] : Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1.5]
15 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [1.5] : Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1.5]
16 Lin, Zhigen AUS [1.5] : Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1.5]
17 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [1.5] : Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [1.5]
18 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [1.5] : Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [1.5]
19 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1] : Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [1]
20 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1] : Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1]
21 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [1] : Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1]
22 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [1] : Kalisch, Tom AUS [1]
23 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [1] : Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [1]
24 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [1] : Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [1]
25 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [1] : Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [1]
26 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1] : Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [1]
27 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5] : Davis, Tony AUS [.5]
28 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [.5] : Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0]
29 Booth, Tony NZL [0] : Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]
30 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0] : Stone, Andrew NZL [0]

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 10:55 PM
Round 4 Womens draw

2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 4
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [3] : Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [2.5]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [2.5] : Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [2]
3 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [2] : Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [2]
4 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [2] : Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [1.5]
5 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1.5] : Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [1.5]
6 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1] : Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [1.5]
7 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [1] : Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1]
8 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [.5] : Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1]
9 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [.5] 1:0 BYE

Trent Parker
31-01-2005, 11:06 PM
Any titles/norm opportunities for the women?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 11:20 PM
Any titles/norm opportunities for the women?
One WIM title for anyone scoring at least 6/9 who currently doesnt have the WIM title.
Two WFM titles for anyone scoring at least 4.5/9 who currently doesnt have the WFM title.

Garvinator
31-01-2005, 11:25 PM
One WIM title for anyone scoring at least 6/9 who currently doesnt have the WIM title.
Two WFM titles for anyone scoring at least 4.5/9 who currently doesnt have the WFM title.
so am i right in my calculations that Narelle could become a WIM if she scores 3 points from the remaining 6 rounds. I am assuming round 4 means they are about to play round 4?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 11:30 PM
so am i right in my calculations that Narelle could become a WIM if she scores 3 points from the remaining 6 rounds. I am assuming round 4 means they are about to play round 4?
Given the schedule for all rounds and the results for the previous 3 rounds have been posted then why wouldnt this be round 4. :wall:

Garvinator
31-01-2005, 11:33 PM
Given the schedule for all rounds and the results for the previous 3 rounds have been posted then why wouldnt this be round 4. :wall:
actually i was more asking about my calculations for the possibility of her WIM chances as i was leading somewhere ;) I just wanted to confirm that i had all the right calculations.

ursogr8
01-02-2005, 07:04 AM
>If you do not want to know the score, look away now.<










Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-4 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127


starter

pax
01-02-2005, 10:13 AM
Bjelobrk is currently killing Wohl..

pax
01-02-2005, 10:14 AM
And as I posted that, it's finished. 1-0.

pax
01-02-2005, 11:53 AM
Bjelobrk now clear first on 4/4, with Xie and Garbett second on 3.5. Garbett-Bjelobrk on board 1 in round 5.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:01 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 4
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [3] 1:0 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [3]
2 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [2.5] .5:.5 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [3]
3 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [2.5] .5:.5 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [2.5]
4 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [2.5] .5:.5 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [2.5]
5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [2.5] 1:0 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [2.5]
6 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [2] 1:0 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [2]
7 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [2] 1:0 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2]
8 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [2] 0:1 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [2]
9 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [2] 1:0 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2]
10 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2] 0:1 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [2]
11 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [2] 1:0 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [2]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [2] .5:.5 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [2]
13 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [1.5] 1:0 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [1.5]
14 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [1.5] 1:0 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1.5]
15 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [1.5] 0:1 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [1.5]
16 Lin, Zhigen AUS [1.5] .5:.5 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [1.5]
17 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [1.5] 1:0 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [1.5]
18 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [1.5] 0:1 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [1.5]
19 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [1] 1:0 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [1]
20 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [1] 1:0 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1]
21 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [1] 1:0 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1]
22 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [1] 1:0 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1]
23 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [1] 1:0 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [1]
24 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [1] .5:.5 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [1]
25 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [1] 1:0 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [1]
26 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1] 0:1 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [1]
27 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [.5] .5:.5 Davis, Tony AUS [.5]
28 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [.5] .5:.5 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [0]
29 Booth, Tony NZL [0] 1:0 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]
30 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0] 0:1 Stone, Andrew NZL [0]

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:02 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 4
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [3] 0:1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [2.5]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [2.5] 1:0 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [2]
3 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [2] .5:.5 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [2]
4 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [2] .5:.5 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [1.5]
5 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1.5] 0:1 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [1.5]
6 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1] 0:1 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [1.5]
7 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [1] 1:0 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1]
8 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [.5] .5:.5 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1]
9 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [.5] 1:0 BYE

ursogr8
01-02-2005, 12:41 PM
Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-5 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127, 108


starter

WhiteElephant
01-02-2005, 01:43 PM
For all the doubters :)

1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [3] 1:0 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [3]

Next Round:

1 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [3.5] : Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [4]

Should be interesting...

pax
01-02-2005, 02:00 PM
For all the doubters :)

1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [3] 1:0 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [3]

Next Round:

1 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [3.5] : Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [4]

Should be interesting...

Igor will want to win that game I imagine, as he will face tougher opponents in rounds 6-9. (Xie, Johansen, Solomon etc)

DoroPhil
01-02-2005, 04:02 PM
Game played this (!) morning are already available for download. Amazing!

pax
01-02-2005, 04:10 PM
The web site updates have been very prompt, but it's a shame there are no standings or crosstable. The live coverage seems a little bit flaky, but is good when it works.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 05:25 PM
Well Igor went down to Garbett.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 07:31 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 5
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [3.5] 1:0 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [4]
2 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [3] 1:0 Xie, George AUS 2359 [3.5]
3 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [3] .5:.5 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [3]
4 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [3] .5:.5 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [3]
5 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [3] 1:0 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [3]
6 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [3] .5:.5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [3]
7 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [3] 0:1 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [3]
8 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [2.5] 1:0 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [3]
9 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [2.5] .5:.5 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [2.5]
10 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [2.5] .5:.5 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [2.5]
11 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [2.5] .5:.5 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [2.5]
12 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2] .5:.5 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [2.5]
13 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [2] 1:0 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2]
14 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [2] 0:1 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [2]
15 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [2] 1:0 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [2]
16 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2] 0:1 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [2]
17 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [2] .5:.5 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [2]
18 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2] 0:1 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [2]
19 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [1.5] .5:.5 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [2]
20 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [1.5] 1:0 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [1.5]
21 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [1.5] 1:0 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [1.5]
22 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1.5] 0:1 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [1.5]
23 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [1] 1:0 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1]
24 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [1] 1:0 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1]
25 Stone, Andrew NZL [1] 0:1 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [1]
26 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [1] 1:0 Booth, Tony NZL [1]
27 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1] .5:.5 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1]
28 Davis, Tony AUS [1] 1:0 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [1]
29 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [.5] 1:0 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]
30 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [0] 1:0 BYE
31 Lin, Zhigen AUS [2] .5:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 07:32 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 5
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [3] .5:.5 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [3.5]
2 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [3.5] 1:0 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [2.5]
3 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [2.5] 1:0 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [2.5]
4 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [2.5] .5:.5 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [2.5]
5 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [2] 0:1 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [2]
6 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [1.5] 0:1 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [2]
7 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1.5] 0:1 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [1.5]
8 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [1] 1:0 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1]
9 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [1] 1:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 07:33 PM
Round 6 Draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 6
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [4] : Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [4.5]
2 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [4] : Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [4]
3 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [3.5] : Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [4]
4 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [3.5] : Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [3.5]
5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [3.5] : Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [3.5]
6 Xie, George AUS 2359 [3.5] : Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [3.5]
7 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [3] : Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [3.5]
8 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [3] : Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [3]
9 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [3] : Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [3]
10 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [3] : Green, Peter NZL 2258 [3]
11 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3] : Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [3]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [3] : Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [3]
13 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [3] : Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [3]
14 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3] : Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [3]
15 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [2.5] : Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2.5]
16 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [2.5] : Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [2.5]
17 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [2.5] : Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [2.5]
18 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [2.5] : Lin, Zhigen AUS [2.5]
19 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [2] : Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2]
20 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2] : Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [2]
21 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [2] : Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [2]
22 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [2] : Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2]
23 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [2] : Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2]
24 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [1.5] : Davis, Tony AUS [2]
25 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [1.5] : Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1.5]
26 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [1.5] : Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1.5]
27 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5] : Booth, Tony NZL [1]
28 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1] : Stone, Andrew NZL [1]
29 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1] : Maroroa, Andrew NZL [1]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] : Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [1]

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 07:34 PM
Round 6 Womens Draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 6
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3] : Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [4.5]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [4] : Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [3.5]
3 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3] : Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [3.5]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [3] : Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [3]
5 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [2.5] : Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [2.5]
6 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [2.5] : Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [2]
7 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [1.5] : Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [2]
8 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1] : Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1.5]
9 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [2] 1:0 BYE

ursogr8
02-02-2005, 07:16 AM
Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-6 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127, 108, 95

And board 4 will be a good game to watch

starter

pax
02-02-2005, 11:07 AM
Garbett and Wohl drew, Igor beat Canfell (Greg was looking slightly better, and got a bit careless I think), Lane beat Solomon with black, and Darryl beat Depasquale.

That leaves Bjelobrk, Lane and Garbett leading on 5/6, ahead of Wohl, Johansen and probably others (from Kulashko, Nokes, Reilly, Xie and Feldman) on 4.5.

The_Wise_Man
02-02-2005, 12:08 PM
Can someone calculate how the score between Australia and NZ???

Sutek
02-02-2005, 12:30 PM
Garbett and Wohl drew, Igor beat Canfell (Greg was looking slightly better, and got a bit careless I think), Lane beat Solomon with black, and Darryl beat Depasquale.

That leaves Bjelobrk, Lane and Garbett leading on 5/6, ahead of Wohl, Johansen and probably others (from Kulashko, Nokes, Reilly, Xie and Feldman) on 4.5.

Yes, Greg had 25.Nf6+! which would have won on the spot.

Regards
Sutek

Garvinator
02-02-2005, 12:49 PM
Yes, Greg had 25.Nf6+! which would have won on the spot.

Regards
Sutek
How so?

Sutek
02-02-2005, 12:59 PM
How so?

After 25.Nf6+ gxf6 (forced) 26.Re4 wins.
If 26...f5 27.Rxb4 gets the piece back with a winning attack.
If 26...Nd5 27.Qh6 wins

I don't see any defence for black after 25.Nf6+

Regards
Sutek

Garvinator
02-02-2005, 01:09 PM
After 25.Nf6+ gxf6 (forced) 26.Re4 wins.
If 26...f5 27.Rxb4 gets the piece back with a winning attack.
If 26...Nd5 27.Qh6 wins

I don't see any defence for black after 25.Nf6+

Regards
Sutek
25. Nf6 gxf6 26. Re4 Nd5 27. Qh6 f5 28. Rh4 Rfe8 29. Qxh7 Kf8 and seemingly the black king gets away. Any possible improvements?

Sutek
02-02-2005, 01:19 PM
25. Nf6 gxf6 26. Re4 Nd5 27. Qh6 f5 28. Rh4 Rfe8 29. Qxh7 Kf8 and seemingly the black king gets away. Any possible improvements?

After 28...Rfe8 white plays 29.Rcc4! (not 29.Qxh7+) and a rook check on g4 will finish matters.


Regards
Sutek

bobby1972
02-02-2005, 01:34 PM
Any Results Please

pax
02-02-2005, 01:43 PM
Any Results Please

Nothing so far except for the live boards. We've been spoilt so far with the prompt updates!

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2005, 03:50 PM
I assume its because there was only one round today being followed by a lightning.

ursogr8
03-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-7 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127, 108, 95, 124

starter

jenni
03-02-2005, 08:26 AM
Game played this (!) morning are already available for download. Amazing!

Well it is actually quite easy - a bunch of parents (me, the Songs, John Cronan), watch games. As soon as a game finishes, we pounce on the score sheet, type in the game. By the end of the round, the organisers only have a few games to type in. Kind of what I suggested for the Aus Juniors - it is called harnassing parent power ( or the art of the volunteer....)

jenni
03-02-2005, 08:31 AM
The inaugral Oceania Lightning Championships were run last night.

Scores

Anthony Ker 6
Anastasia Sorokino 6
James Cronan 5.5
Gareth Oliver 4.5
Alex Feldman 4
Alek Safarian 4
Stephen Solomon 3.5
Nathan Goodhue 3.5
Tom Kalisch 3.5
Sue Maroroa 3.5
Chris Wallis 3
Jason Chan 3

etc

pax
03-02-2005, 08:56 AM
If anyone wants crosstables, standings and so on (plus the results of the latest round), go to:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalOpen/
and
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalWomen/

This is an unofficial site, and the tiebreak ranking in particular may not be accurate.

I will endeavour to keep these as up to date as the official site.

Pax

Garvinator
03-02-2005, 09:31 AM
Kind of what I suggested for the Aus Juniors - it is called harnassing parent power ( or the art of the volunteer....)
or making the most of free services :lol: ;) we have actually flogged this topic to death i had thought :doh:

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:33 AM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 6

Results


No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [4] .5:.5 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [4.5]
2 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [4] 0:1 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [4]
3 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [3.5] 0:1 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [4]
4 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [3.5] 1:0 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [3.5]
5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [3.5] 0:1 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [3.5]
6 Xie, George AUS 2359 [3.5] 1:0 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [3.5]
7 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [3] 0:1 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [3.5]
8 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [3] .5:.5 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [3]
9 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [3] 1:0 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [3]
10 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [3] .5:.5 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [3]
11 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3] 0:1 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [3]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [3] .5:.5 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [3]
13 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [3] .5:.5 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [3]
14 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3] 0:1 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [3]
15 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [2.5] .5:.5 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [2.5]
16 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [2.5] .5:.5 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [2.5]
17 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [2.5] .5:.5 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [2.5]
18 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [2.5] 0:1 Lin, Zhigen AUS [2.5]
19 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [2] 1:0 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2]
20 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2] .5:.5 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [2]
21 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [2] .5:.5 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [2]
22 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [2] .5:.5 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2]
23 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [2] 1:0 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2]
24 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [1.5] 1:0 Davis, Tony AUS [2]
25 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [1.5] 1:0 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1.5]
26 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [1.5] 0:1 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [1.5]
27 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5] 0:1 Booth, Tony NZL [1]
28 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [1] 1:0 Stone, Andrew NZL [1]
29 Kalisch, Tom AUS [1] 1:0 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [1]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] 0:1 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [1]

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:34 AM
1 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3] 0:1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [4.5]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [4] 1:0 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [3.5]
3 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3] 0:1 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [3.5]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [3] 1:0 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [3]
5 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [2.5] .5:.5 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [2.5]
6 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [2.5] 1:0 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [2]
7 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [1.5] .5:.5 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [2]
8 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1] .5:.5 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [1.5]
9 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [2] 1:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:51 AM
Round 7 Open draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 7

Results


No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [5] : Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [5]
2 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [5] : Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [4.5]
3 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [4.5] : Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [4.5]
4 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [4.5] : Xie, George AUS 2359 [4.5]
5 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [4] : Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [4]
6 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [4] : Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [4]
7 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [3.5] : Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [3.5]
8 Lin, Zhigen AUS [3.5] : Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [3.5]
9 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [3.5] : Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [3.5]
10 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [3.5] : Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [3.5]
11 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [3.5] : Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [3.5]
12 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [3.5] : Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [3.5]
13 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [3.5] : Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [3]
14 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [3] : Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [3]
15 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [3] : Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [3]
16 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [3] : McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3]
17 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [3] : Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3]
18 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [3] : Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [3]
19 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2.5] : Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [3]
20 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [2.5] : Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [2.5]
21 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2.5] : Cronan, James AUS 2053 [2.5]
22 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [2.5] : Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [2.5]
23 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [2.5] : Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [2.5]
24 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2] : Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [2.5]
25 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2] : Davis, Tony AUS [2]
26 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [2] : Kalisch, Tom AUS [2]
27 Booth, Tony NZL [2] : Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [2]
28 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1.5] : Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [1.5]
29 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [1] : Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5]
30 Stone, Andrew NZL [1] : Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:52 AM
Round 7 Womens draw:



1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [5.5] : Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [4]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [5] : Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [3.5]
3 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [3.5] : Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [4.5]
4 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [3] : Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [3]
5 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [3] : Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3]
6 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [3] : Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3]
7 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [2] : Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [2]
8 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [2] : Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1.5]
9 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [2.5] 1:0 BYE

Oepty
03-02-2005, 12:20 PM
Thank you to Bill and others for their updates on the zonal in this thread. Excellent work.

From an SA point of view it great to see Aaron Guthrie doing well.

Scott

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:20 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 7

Results


No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [5] .5:.5 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [5]
2 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [5] 0:1 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [4.5]
3 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [4.5] 0:1 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [4.5]
4 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [4.5] .5:.5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [4.5]
5 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [4] 0:1 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [4]
6 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [4] .5:.5 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [4]
7 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [3.5] .5:.5 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [3.5]
8 Lin, Zhigen AUS [3.5] 0:1 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [3.5]
9 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [3.5] .5:.5 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [3.5]
10 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [3.5] .5:.5 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [3.5]
11 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [3.5] .5:.5 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [3.5]
12 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [3.5] .5:.5 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [3.5]
13 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [3.5] 1:0 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [3]
14 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [3] 0:1 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [3]
15 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [3] 0:1 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [3]
16 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [3] .5:.5 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3]
17 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [3] .5:.5 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3]
18 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [3] 1:0 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [3]
19 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2.5] 0:1 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [3]
20 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [2.5] .5:.5 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [2.5]
21 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2.5] 0:1 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [2.5]
22 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [2.5] .5:.5 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [2.5]
23 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [2.5] 1:0 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [2.5]
24 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2] .5:.5 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [2.5]
25 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2] .5:.5 Davis, Tony AUS [2]
26 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [2] 0:1 Kalisch, Tom AUS [2]
27 Booth, Tony NZL [2] 0:1 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [2]
28 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [1.5] .5:.5 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [1.5]
29 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [1] 1:0 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5]
30 Stone, Andrew NZL [1] 1:0 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0]

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:21 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 7

Results


No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [5.5] 1:0 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [4]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [5] 1:0 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [3.5]
3 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [3.5] .5:.5 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [4.5]
4 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [3] .5:.5 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [3]
5 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [3] 1:0 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3]
6 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [3] 1:0 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3]
7 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [2] .5:.5 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [2]
8 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [2] 1:0 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1.5]
9 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [2.5] 1:0 BYE

pax
03-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Now updated for round 7 results and round 8 pairings.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalOpen/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalWomen/

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:23 PM
Round 8 Open draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 8

Results


No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [5.5] : Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [5.5]
2 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [5] : Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [5.5]
3 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [5.5] : Xie, George AUS 2359 [5]
4 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [5] : Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [5]
5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [4.5] : Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [4.5]
6 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [4.5] : Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [4.5]
7 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [4.5] : Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [4]
8 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [4] : Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [4]
9 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [4] : Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [4]
10 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [4] : Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [4]
11 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [4] : Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [4]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [4] : Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [4]
13 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [4] : Green, Peter NZL 2258 [4]
14 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [4] : Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [4]
15 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3.5] : Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [3.5]
16 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [3.5] : Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [3.5]
17 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3.5] : Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [3.5]
18 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [3] : Lin, Zhigen AUS [3.5]
19 Kalisch, Tom AUS [3] : Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [3]
20 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [3] : Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [3]
21 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [3] : Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [3]
22 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [3] : Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [3]
23 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [3] : Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [3]
24 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2.5] : Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2.5]
25 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [2.5] : Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2.5]
26 Davis, Tony AUS [2.5] : Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2.5]
27 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [2] : Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [2]
28 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [2] : Stone, Andrew NZL [2]
29 Booth, Tony NZL [2] : Maroroa, Andrew NZL [2]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] : Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5]

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:24 PM
Round 8 Womens draw:



1 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [4] : Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [6.5]
2 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [4] : Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [6]
3 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [5] : Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [4]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [4] : Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [3.5]
5 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [3.5] : Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [3.5]
6 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [3.5] : Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [3]
7 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3] : Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [2.5]
8 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1.5] : Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [2.5]
9 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3] 1:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:30 PM
Although there are others further back in the field who can reach 6/9, one of Canfell, Xie, Bjelobrk and Garbett are all still the favourites for getting the IM title (most likely via countback).

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:40 PM
This is an unofficial site, and the tiebreak ranking in particular may not be accurate.
My understanding is that the tie break method used is sum of progressive scores.

pax
03-02-2005, 03:08 PM
Although there are others further back in the field who can reach 6/9, one of Canfell, Xie, Bjelobrk and Garbett are all still the favourites for getting the IM title (most likely via countback).

I'd say it is almost impossible for anyone else to get there as the four above will have better TB scores. Garbett looks the best bet right now..

Narelle is looking good for the WIM title at this stage.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 03:11 PM
I'd say it is almost impossible for anyone else to get there as the four above will have better TB scores. Garbett looks the best bet right now..

Narelle is looking good for the WIM title at this stage.
However unlike the the Open contenders, the women contenders are nowhere near real WIM strength.

pax
03-02-2005, 03:38 PM
However unlike the the Open contenders, the women contenders are nowhere near real WIM strength.

Indeed. It seems highly likely that the winner of the IM title from the zonal will have needed at least an IM norm to do so (Garbett currently has a rating performance well over 2500). In the women's event no WIM norm is even possible.

Kerry Stead
03-02-2005, 05:45 PM
Does anyone know how Greg's going in terms of IM norm performance? He's the only person in the tournament who has two ways to the IM title from the tournament, as I believe he already has 2 IM norms to his name, so he could potentially still become an IM from the tournament, even if he misses out on the 'top scoring non-IM' title.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 05:52 PM
Well Greg is now on 6 along with Garbett.
Xie and Bjelobrk are on 5.5.

Ian_Rogers
03-02-2005, 06:01 PM
I believe Canfell has only one IM norm, a 12 game norm from Hungary 1990 so he will need to be the best non-IM in this tournament to take the IM title from the Zonal.

However Garbett has two IM norms and needs just to keep his performance rating over 2450 to get his third and final norm.
Ian

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 06:30 PM
I believe Canfell has only one IM norm, a 12 game norm from Hungary 1990 so he will need to be the best non-IM in this tournament to take the IM title from the Zonal.

However Garbett has two IM norms and needs just to keep his performance rating over 2450 to get the title.

Ian
Perhaps I'm missing something but 1.43 of the FIDE Handbook on "Requirements for the titles designated in 0.31." says:
"Federations of opponents.
At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included"

Doesnt this mean Garbett needs to play an Aussie and the lone Fijian.

Ian_Rogers
03-02-2005, 06:36 PM
To be more precise, for an IM norm after tomorrow's games:

In the final round Garbett needs 0/1 against any opponent rated 2277 or above (e.g. Feldman), or 0.5/1 against any opponent.

Bjelobrk needs a win against any opponent rated above 2147.

Canfell may not be able to get an IM norm as he has not played enough titled opponents. (Under the old rules you could count your own title (Greg is an FM) but under the new ones its seems you need 5 titled opponents from 9 games.)
If Greg did not have the titled opponent problem, he would have needed to beat an IM opponent, of any rating.

Of course one of these three will get an IM title in one hit by being the top non-IM at the end of the Zonal with a score of 6 or better.

Ian (with a lot of help from Cathy)

Ian_Rogers
03-02-2005, 06:38 PM
Bill,

Zonals are exempted from the 'opponents from three Federations' rule - perhaps because there are some single nation zonals!

Ian

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 06:44 PM
Bill,

Zonals are exempted from the 'opponents from three Federations' rule - perhaps because there are some single nation zonals!

Ian
Thanks Ian.

I noticed that just after I made my post as I continued reading the handbook. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 07:02 PM
To be more precise, for an IM norm after tomorrow's games:

In the final round Garbett needs 0/1 against any opponent rated 2277 or above (e.g. Feldman), or 0.5/1 against any opponent.

Bjelobrk needs a win against any opponent rated above 2147.

Canfell may not be able to get an IM norm as he has not played enough titled opponents. (Under the old rules you could count your own title (Greg is an FM) but under the new ones its seems you need 5 titled opponents from 9 games.)
If Greg did not have the titled opponent problem, he would have needed to beat an IM opponent, of any rating.

Of course one of these three will get an IM title in one hit by being the top non-IM at the end of the Zonal with a score of 6 or better.

Ian (with a lot of help from Cathy)
Yes it appears too bad for Greg that Bjelobrk never applied for an FM title (published rating over 2300).
I wonder if FIDE would overlook that given Bjelobrk's rating has been over 2300 since July 2003.

ursogr8
03-02-2005, 07:09 PM
Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-9 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127, 108, 95, 124, 108, 127

starter

pax
03-02-2005, 07:25 PM
To be more precise, for an IM norm after tomorrow's games:

In the final round Garbett needs 0/1 against any opponent rated 2277 or above (e.g. Feldman), or 0.5/1 against any opponent.

Wouldn't he also need to satisfy the rating criterion (over 2400) if he doesn't finish as the top non-IM? That could take a little while.

pax
03-02-2005, 07:40 PM
Or has he been over 2400 in the past?

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 07:47 PM
Or has he been over 2400 in the past?
No. Highest was 2372 in Jan 99 list according to Chessbase player encyclopedia.

Oepty
03-02-2005, 07:54 PM
According to the chessbase player database Garbett best ever published rating was 2372 on January 1st 1999 list. He might though be able to prove he has had a non published rating of over 2400 sometime during his career. This would be enough if my memory of FIDE rules is correct.
Scott

pax
03-02-2005, 08:10 PM
According to the chessbase player database Garbett best ever published rating was 2372 on January 1st 1999 list. He might though be able to prove he has had a non published rating of over 2400 sometime during his career. This would be enough if my memory of FIDE rules is correct.
Scott

28 is a big gap. It seems pretty unlikely he went up to 2400 and back down below 2372 in one period.

Ian_Rogers
03-02-2005, 08:13 PM
Yes, I should have mentioned the 2400 requirement to actually become an IM. After three norms Garbett can apply for the title and be awarded it conditionally - coming into force when his rating goes over 2400.
That might take a while, so he has a real incentive to go for the immediate Zonal IM title.

Ian

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:06 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 8
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [5.5] .5:.5 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [5.5]
2 Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [5] 1:0 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [5.5]
3 Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [5.5] .5:.5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [5]
4 Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [5] .5:.5 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [5]
5 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [4.5] 0:1 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [4.5]
6 Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [4.5] 1:0 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [4.5]
7 Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [4.5] 0:1 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [4]
8 Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [4] 1:0 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [4]
9 Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [4] 1:0 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [4]
10 Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [4] 0:1 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [4]
11 Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [4] 0:1 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [4]
12 Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [4] .5:.5 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [4]
13 Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [4] 1:0 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [4]
14 Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [4] 0:1 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [4]
15 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [3.5] 1:0 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [3.5]
16 Cronan, James AUS 2053 [3.5] .5:.5 Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [3.5]
17 Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [3.5] 1:0 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [3.5]
18 Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [3] 1:0 Lin, Zhigen AUS [3.5]
19 Kalisch, Tom AUS [3] 0:1 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [3]
20 Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [3] .5:.5 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [3]
21 Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [3] .5:.5 Van Renen, Mike AUS 2060 [3]
22 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [3] 0:1 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [3]
23 Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [3] 0:1 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [3]
24 Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [2.5] .5:.5 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [2.5]
25 Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [2.5] .5:.5 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [2.5]
26 Davis, Tony AUS [2.5] 1:0 Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2.5]
27 Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [2] 1:0 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [2]
28 Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [2] .5:.5 Stone, Andrew NZL [2]
29 Booth, Tony NZL [2] .5:.5 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [2]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [0] 1:0 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5]

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:07 PM
2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 8
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [4] 0:1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [6.5]
2 Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [4] 0:1 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [6]
3 Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [5] 0:1 Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [4]
4 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [4] 0:1 Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [3.5]
5 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [3.5] 0:1 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [3.5]
6 Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [3.5] 1:0 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [3]
7 Gao, Judy (16) NZL [3] 1:0 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [2.5]
8 Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [1.5] .5:.5 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [2.5]
9 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [3] 1:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:08 PM
Round 9 Open draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Open - Round 9
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Lane, Gary AUS 2439 [6] : Canfell, Greg AUS 2361 [6]
2 Wohl, Alex AUS 2378 [5.5] : Johansen, Darryl AUS 2471 [6]
3 Feldman, Vladimir AUS 2300 [5.5] : Garbett, Paul NZL 2312 [6]
4 Humphrey, Jonathan AUS 2150 [5.5] : Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2377 [5.5]
5 Xie, George AUS 2359 [5.5] : Guthrie, Aaron AUS 2170 [5.5]
6 Lukey, Stephen NZL 2281 [5] : Solomon, Stephen AUS 2426 [5]
7 Depasquale, Chris AUS 2333 [5] : Ker, Anthony NZL 2327 [5]
8 Reilly, Tim AUS 2302 [5] : Steadman, Michael NZL 2222 [5]
9 Smith, Bob NZL 2233 [5] : McLaren, Leonard NZL 2247 [4.5]
10 Kulashko, Alexei NZL 2377 [4.5] : Wang, Puchen NZL 2218 [4.5]
11 Nokes, Roger NZL 2329 [4.5] : Jones, Brian AUS 2168 [4.5]
12 Rujevic, Mirko AUS 2260 [4.5] : Stojic, Dusan AUS 2036 [4.5]
13 Watson, Bruce NZL 2286 [4] : Stuart, Peter NZL 2146 [4]
14 Green, Peter NZL 2258 [4] : Cronan, James AUS 2053 [4]
15 Gibbons, Bob NZL 2075 [4] : Sonter, Matthew AUS 2206 [4]
16 Safarian, Alek AUS 2092 [4] : Jones, Lee AUS 2199 [4]
17 Mistry, Prashant NZL 2017 [4] : Spain, Graeme NZL 2192 [4]
18 Oliver, Gareth AUS 2000 [4] : Charles, Gareth AUS 2178 [4]
19 Song, Raymond AUS 2063 [3.5] : Wheeler, Bruce NZL 2139 [3.5]
20 Lin, Zhigen AUS [3.5] : Goodhue, Nathan NZL 2092 [3.5]
21 Wallis, Chris AUS 2051 [3.5] : Davis, Tony AUS [3.5]
22 Donaldson, Bruce NZL 2002 [3.5] : Krstev, Antonio NZL 2132 [3]
23 Perry, Roger NZL 2186 [3] : Thornton, Gino NZL 1995 [3]
24 Goffin, Peter NZL 2154 [3] : Benson, Chris NZL 2049 [3]
25 Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1992 [3] : Bennett, Hilton NZL 2079 [3]
26 Hair, Philip NZL 2036 [2] : Kalisch, Tom AUS [3]
27 Maroroa, Andrew NZL [2.5] : Chan, Jason AUS 2140 [2.5]
28 Stone, Andrew NZL [2.5] : Booth, Tony NZL [2.5]
29 Maroroa, Temu NZL [1.5] : Prasad, Calvin FIJ 1788 [2.5]
30 Cheng, Bobby NZL [1] 1:0 BYE

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 10:09 PM
Round 9 Womens draw:

2005 Oceania Zonal Womens - Round 9
Results
No Name Feder Rtg Total Result Name Feder Rtg Total

1 Berezina-Feldman, Irina (1) AUS 2275 [7.5] : Song, Angela (7) AUS 1826 [5]
2 Sorokina, Anastasia (2) AUS 2223 [7] : Zivanovic, Andjelija (4) AUS 2025 [4.5]
3 Smith, Vivian (9) NZL [4.5] : Szuveges, Narelle (6) AUS 1901 [5]
4 Liu, Cecily (17) NZL [2.5] : Mararoa, Sue (10) NZL [4.5]
5 Chen, Eachen (14) NZL [4] : Gao, Judy (16) NZL [4]
6 Oliver, Tamzin (15) AUS [3] : Oliver, Shannon (5) AUS 1963 [4]
7 Wu, Shirley (13) NZL [3] : Reid, Vaness (8) AUS [4]
8 Charamova, Evgenia (3) NZL 2067 [4] : Antrea, Frentina (12) FIJ [2]
9 Fairley, Natasha (11) NZL [3.5] 1:0 BYE

pax
03-02-2005, 10:21 PM
updated:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalOpen/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalWomen/

pax
03-02-2005, 10:43 PM
Looks like Humphrey and Guthrie have thrown themselves into the realm of mathematical possibility for the IM title (as well as being odds on for FM). That would be setting records for Australia's lowest rated IM (and adding to the very short list of under 2200 IMs).

I don't mean to take away, however from the great performances of those two (Humphrey is remarkably undefeated).

pax
03-02-2005, 10:49 PM
Bjelobrk needs a win against any opponent rated above 2147.

Close shave: Humphrey is 2150 (still has to beat him tho which hasn't been easy so far).

Ian_Rogers
03-02-2005, 11:01 PM
George Xie wasn't so lucky - he needed to be paired with an opponent over 2337 and win to have a chance for an IM norm.

Ian

ursogr8
04-02-2005, 07:17 AM
Competitive index, (discarding games between 'un-rateds')
Round 1-9 ..... 268, 173, 123, 127, 108, 95, 124, 108, 127

starter

pax
04-02-2005, 08:27 AM
Newsflash: Feldman was a (very) short draw, so Garbett is now guaranteed the IM title I believe. Humphrey has a terriffic attack going against Igor. Looks like it should be winning.

pax
04-02-2005, 08:39 AM
In fact, Igor has resigned. Well done Humphrey (he missed out on an IM norm by the barest of margins), and commiserations to Igor (who missed out on an IM norm by failing to win).

pax
04-02-2005, 08:50 AM
I'm quite glad the FIDE rules for open zonals were changed: otherwise we would be looking at around 18 new FMs from this event (FM titles are now restricted to two).

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Newsflash: Feldman was a (very) short draw, so Garbett is now guaranteed the IM title I believe. Humphrey has a terriffic attack going against Igor. Looks like it should be winning.
I thought Garbett was guaranteed an IM norm, but now needs to get his rating over 2400 to get the title. He can still get the automatic title, however if Canfell beats Lane, doesn't Canfell get the title?

pax
04-02-2005, 09:03 AM
I thought Garbett was guaranteed an IM norm, but now needs to get his rating over 2400 to get the title. He can still get the automatic title, however if Canfell beats Lane, doesn't Canfell get the title?

Oops, that is true. I forgot that Canfell can still win! Garbett will win any countback however.

pax
04-02-2005, 09:05 AM
Anyone know the playoff format?

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 09:11 AM
Anyone know the playoff format?
I believe its 2x15 minute rapid games ... or at least that's what has been used in the past at zonals (think there was a 5 or 10 second increment too). If they are ties, it goes to blitz. Remember the playoff system for the FIDE knockout ... after all, this is a qualification tourney for it ...

Ian Rout
04-02-2005, 10:16 AM
I believe its 2x15 minute rapid games ... or at least that's what has been used in the past at zonals (think there was a 5 or 10 second increment too). If they are ties, it goes to blitz. Remember the playoff system for the FIDE knockout ... after all, this is a qualification tourney for it ...
Is that right, or is it a qualification for something whose format is yet to be determined?

shaun
04-02-2005, 10:40 AM
Matters not. Lane wins outright on 7/9.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Congratulations to IM Gary Lane for winning the 2005 zonal! Perhaps he likes the idea of getting a medal at the start of the year for his chess?

His last round game against Canfell was interesting and could have gone either way - looked like he had the best of it early on, but Canfell launched what looked like a promising attack, but it went astray and Lane held his position together well.

Congratulations also to Paul Garbett for gaining the IM title.
Jonathan Humphrey will get one of the FM titles - he played a really good tournament and went through it undefeated, so it was well-deserved as far as automatic titles go. Any idea who will get the other FM title?

pax
04-02-2005, 10:52 AM
Congratulations also to Paul Garbett for gaining the IM title.
Jonathan Humphrey will get one of the FM titles - he played a really good tournament and went through it undefeated, so it was well-deserved as far as automatic titles go. Any idea who will get the other FM title?

If it is a tie on 5.5, I wonder whether Igor not having the FM title means that he gets the "automatic" title despite the fact that he already qualifies? I think Guthrie would beat any other candidate on countback unless he loses and Steadman wins.

pax
04-02-2005, 12:56 PM
Final results are now up, and I have updated my pages:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalOpen/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paxmans/ZonalWomen/

Guthrie lost and Steadman drew, so my estimation is that FM titles go to Humphrey and Guthrie (assuming that Bjelobrk is deemed to have already qualified for the FM title).

In the women's event, Narelle won, and Song lost so Narelle gets the WIM title. Angela Song qualifies in principle for one of the WFM titles, however I believe she already qualified for a title at the Asian junior. If that is the case, the WFM titles will go to Vaness Reid and Shannon Oliver (I am assuming tiebreak is sum of progressive followed by Buchholz or Median Buchholz and Buchholz). Charamova had the same sumprogressive score as Reid and Oliver, but a lower B and MB.

Garvinator
04-02-2005, 01:09 PM
In the women's event, Narelle won, and Song lost so Narelle gets the WIM title. Angela Song qualifies in principle for one of the WFM titles, however I believe she already qualified for a title at the Asian junior. If that is the case, the WFM titles will go to Vaness Reid and Shannon Oliver (I am assuming tiebreak is sum of progressive followed by Buchholz or Median Buchholz and Buchholz). Charamova had the same sumprogressive score as Reid and Oliver, but a lower B and MB.
Does this just make more of a farce of titles? I think so.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 01:19 PM
Does this just make more of a farce of titles? I think so.

Hey girls, now when you buy a packet of Weet-Bix you'll also receive a poster of Brett Lee and a WFM title!

pax
04-02-2005, 01:23 PM
Reid scored 0.5/4 against rated opponents, Oliver scored 1/4, Song scored 1.5/4. There is no doubt in my mind that WFM and FM title have been devalued since the introduction of open zonals.

Garvinator
04-02-2005, 01:27 PM
Reid scored 0.5/4 against rated opponents, Oliver scored 1/4, Song scored 1.5/4. There is no doubt in my mind that WFM and FM title have been devalued since the introduction of open zonals.
i dont understand why zonals have special conditions? Why cant the titles just be norm standards like other tournaments do. Also I still think FM and WFM titles should have the three norm standard as well.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 01:48 PM
i dont understand why zonals have special conditions? Why cant the titles just be norm standards like other tournaments do. Also I still think FM and WFM titles should have the three norm standard as well.

Because traditionally, zonals are very strong ... and they were the first step in the qualification for the world championship, back when they had Candidates matches, etc.
The FM title is a lower standard, and would therefore have far more potential recipients/applicants ... and there would be a significant additional administrative load to deal with applications, etc. The current standard of reaching a specific rating (2300 in the case of the FM title) is perfectly fine in my books.

The reason why Australia (along with NZ, Fiji & PNG) are in a unique position is that ours is a sub-zone ... we are zone 3.2b (I think that's correct) ... rather than being in zone 3.2, which would include our Asian neighbours to the north, such as the Indonesians, Indians, Filipinos, etc, which would make for a substantially stronger zonal event. When problems with the system were discovered after the first Oceania zonal tournament, the rules were modified. The fact that players who might not seem to be deserving of a title have achieved it should not be something to hold against the players, rather it is a combination of the system that they find themselves in, as well as the general lack of strong players playing, particularly in the women's event.

pax
04-02-2005, 01:53 PM
i dont understand why zonals have special conditions? Why cant the titles just be norm standards like other tournaments do. Also I still think FM and WFM titles should have the three norm standard as well.

It is a historical hangover, from the days when there was a proper world championship cycle and zonals were always tough. The continental federations like the free titles as it gives their premier events some pulling power, FIDE likes them as they get fees for title applications.

FM titles have never required norms, and I can't see that ever happening. Norms are too much trouble to administer, especially for a title that isn't really worth much to tournament organisers. FMs never get conditions, and seldom get discounted entry for tournaments.

Garvinator
04-02-2005, 01:58 PM
The fact that players who might not seem to be deserving of a title have achieved it should not be something to hold against the players, rather it is a combination of the system that they find themselves in, as well as the general lack of strong players playing, particularly in the women's event.
i dont think any of us are criticising any of the players, we are criticising the regulations that allow them to get titles for not so great performances. Is the 2300 mark actually enforced or exist in zonals?

arosar
04-02-2005, 02:03 PM
i dont think any of us are criticising any of the players, we are criticising the regulations that allow them to get titles for not so great performances. Is the 2300 mark actually enforced or exist in zonals?

gray, this is one of those instances when you and I are in agreement. I was just talking to BG re this, in Parr's shop, not more than 30 mins ago and we think it's all a bit of a farce.

Kerry can crap on all he wants - the fact is, it's a BIG joke! Certainly, for my money an even bigger joke than you know what.

AR

pax
04-02-2005, 02:04 PM
i dont think any of us are criticising any of the players, we are criticising the regulations that allow them to get titles for not so great performances. Is the 2300 mark actually enforced or exist in zonals?
To get an FM title, you can either
a) reach a rating of 2300, or
b) achieve a specififed result in a special event (such as the zonal).

Humphrey (for example) will get the title without reaching 2300 (as did Dwyer, Jones, Jones etc). Bjelobrk qualifies for the title by rating alone.

pax
04-02-2005, 02:12 PM
Incidentally, congratulations to Zhigen Lin who should now enter the rating list at around 2185. Dusan Stojic also did well to score 50% against a field of 2200 average.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 02:20 PM
gray, this is one of those instances when you and I are in agreement. I was just talking to BG re this, in Parr's shop, not more than 30 mins ago and we think it's all a bit of a farce.

Kerry can crap on all he wants - the fact is, it's a BIG joke! Certainly, for my money an even bigger joke than you know what.

AR

My 'crapping on' was simply explaining what the current rules are. I don't necessarily agree with them either, but until they are changed, they're what you have to play by. Its like saying that people would like pawns to be able to move 2 squares forward on any turn, not just their first turn ... but the rules are as such that you play with them as they stand. Same thing applies to titles.
Good use of the backhanded insult too Amiel ... :lol:

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 03:11 PM
My 'crapping on' was simply explaining what the current rules are. I don't necessarily agree with them either, but until they are changed, they're what you have to play by. Its like saying that people would like pawns to be able to move 2 squares forward on any turn, not just their first turn ... but the rules are as such that you play with them as they stand. Same thing applies to titles.
Good use of the backhanded insult too Amiel ... :lol:
It would be relatively easy to give the oceania zonals some credability with regards awarding of titles if there was a minimum rating such as 2100 or 2200 for the open and 2100 or 2000 for the womens.
it is having them Open to all and sundry thats the problem.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 03:20 PM
It would be relatively easy to give the oceania zonals some credability with regards awarding of titles if there was a minimum rating such as 2100 or 2200 for the open and 2100 or 2000 for the womens.
it is having them Open to all and sundry thats the problem.
So a field of 6 or less is what the women's zonal should be?
As far as the Open is concerned, getting over 6 in a zonal is far from easy, and the limiting of the titles means that its not so easy to just waltz into the tournament and walk out an FM. Heck, under the old rules, Humphrey would be an IM now! He was far from being a certainty from becoming an FM either ...

arosar
04-02-2005, 04:01 PM
So a field of 6 or less is what the women's zonal should be?

For barrister you keep saying such silly things, you know that. No, you just don't have a separate women's section. Easy!

And besides, you can always have them just compete in the Open section. I mean, heck, that's why it's called a bloody open. What's so new about the idea of women playing in a big open event?

AR

pax
04-02-2005, 04:04 PM
As far as the Open is concerned, getting over 6 in a zonal is far from easy, and the limiting of the titles means that its not so easy to just waltz into the tournament and walk out an FM. Heck, under the old rules, Humphrey would be an IM now! He was far from being a certainty from becoming an FM either ...

The trouble is that when it's an open, you can't really predict how easy it will be to get 50% or 66%. The more low rated players enter, the easier it will be.

Whichever way you look at it, most of Australia's lowest rated title holders have recieved those titles from zonal tournaments.

The other problem with these titles, is that with the Zonals occurring so frequently, the Oceania Zonal seems to be the "standard" way to titles for an Australian or New Zealand player. IM norms and 2300 ratings seem to be the much tougher path. To me this just doesn't seem right.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 04:18 PM
For barrister you keep saying such silly things, you know that. No, you just don't have a separate women's section. Easy!

And besides, you can always have them just compete in the Open section. I mean, heck, that's why it's called a bloody open. What's so new about the idea of women playing in a big open event?

AR

Amiel, you sound so much like a tourist ...

The tournament is a qualifier for the Women's world championship ... which is an event which consists entirely of female participants.
Yes, the option is there for the women to play in the open, but that's simple for the World championship.

You have to compare apples with apples ... not apples with oranges.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 04:56 PM
Humphrey (for example) will get the title without reaching 2300 (as did Dwyer, Jones, Jones etc). Bjelobrk qualifies for the title by rating alone.

As did Stawski, all he had to do was reach 1800 ACF!

Congrats to Jono though.. he's a stronger player than people think. Now I don't feel so bad for having lost to him a few months ago. (Although I don't feel any better at having beaten Stawski around the same time though). :rolleyes:

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 04:59 PM
So a field of 6 or less is what the women's zonal should be?
As far as the Open is concerned, getting over 6 in a zonal is far from easy, and the limiting of the titles means that its not so easy to just waltz into the tournament and walk out an FM. Heck, under the old rules, Humphrey would be an IM now! He was far from being a certainty from becoming an FM either ...

And someone else we all know would have been an FM under the old rules, isn't that right Kerry ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 06:02 PM
So a field of 6 or less is what the women's zonal should be?
If there are only 6 women over 2000 then so be it.
The only concession I would make is that for each federation with no players above the limit they are allowed one competitor below the limit.
To normally get a WFM title requires a rating of 2100.
To normally get a WIM title requires 3 norms and a rating of 2200.
None of those women are close to 2100 FIDE let alone 2200.



As far as the Open is concerned, getting over 6 in a zonal is far from easy, and the limiting of the titles means that its not so easy to just waltz into the tournament and walk out an FM.
You only need 4.5 to get an FM title. Given 37 of the 60 players are either under 2200 or unrated then getting at least 50% isnt that difficult.


Heck, under the old rules, Humphrey would be an IM now! He was far from being a certainty from becoming an FM either ...Dont get me wrong, I'm not criticisng the players for talking advantages of the opportunites afforded them. I'm criticising those people who organise the events in this manner. It devalues the titles won.

Garbett has 3 IM norms now but would unlikely to get the IM title via that route because his rating is unlikely to reach the 2400.
Humphrey is nowhere near the 2300 FIDE rating required for an FM title.

As such zonals run as swisses without a minimum rating required for entry make a mockery out of the automatic titles awarded.

Sutek
04-02-2005, 06:02 PM
pax FM titles have never required norms, and I can't see that ever happening. Norms are too much trouble to administer, especially for a title that isn't really worth much to tournament organisers. FMs never get conditions, and seldom get discounted entry for tournaments.

Hi Pax,

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.
When FIDE first introduced the FM title (late 70's I think?) players were required to get norms.
If I'm not mistaken Max Fuller achieved his FM title in this manner and probably the only Australian that ever did.

Regards
Sutek

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 06:05 PM
The trouble is that when it's an open, you can't really predict how easy it will be to get 50% or 66%. The more low rated players enter, the easier it will be.

Whichever way you look at it, most of Australia's lowest rated title holders have recieved those titles from zonal tournaments.

The other problem with these titles, is that with the Zonals occurring so frequently, the Oceania Zonal seems to be the "standard" way to titles for an Australian or New Zealand player. IM norms and 2300 ratings seem to be the much tougher path. To me this just doesn't seem right.
At least we should be thankful you cannot get GM or WGM titles automatically via zonals.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 06:10 PM
In the women's event, Narelle won, and Song lost so Narelle gets the WIM title. Angela Song qualifies in principle for one of the WFM titles, however I believe she already qualified for a title at the Asian junior. If that is the case, the WFM titles will go to Vaness Reid and Shannon Oliver (I am assuming tiebreak is sum of progressive followed by Buchholz or Median Buchholz and Buchholz).
I believe that is incorrect.
As you said the tiebreak is sum of progressive scores.
However if there is still a tie then deduct the first round score, and if necessary the second round and so on.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 06:29 PM
You only need 4.5 to get an FM title. Given 37 of the 60 players are either under 2200 or unrated then getting at least 50% isnt that difficult.
Have you noticed the scores required to get the FM title since the requirements were changed by FIDE? Heck, scoring 5/9 in this even didn't even get you a look in at an FM title, and 6.5/9 wasn't good enough for an IM title ... are these titles really so easy to get Bill?


Garbett has 3 IM norms now but would unlikely to get the IM title via that route because his rating is unlikely to reach the 2400.
Humphrey is nowhere near the 2300 FIDE rating required for an FM title.

As such zonals run as swisses without a minimum rating required for entry make a mockery out of the automatic titles awarded.

Yes, Garbett may have a rating under 2400, but isn't his performance for this tournament somewhere around the 2500 mark? Heck, if I knew I had 3 IM norms under my belt and only needed to get my rating over 2400 to get the title, I think I'd be very motivated to do so!
If Humphrey is nowhere near 2300 strength, how did he manage to beat Bjelobrk (who is eligible to be an FM) and FM Kulashko and draw with GM Johansen & IM Ker in the same event? What about his =2nd place at the 2003 Australian Open? Obviously he's a no-talent hack who doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the FM title ... :wall:

Apart from the titles awarded in the first zonal, name me one player who you would say made a 'mockery' out of the automatic titles?

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 07:21 PM
Hi Pax,

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.
When FIDE first introduced the FM title (late 70's I think?) players were required to get norms.
If I'm not mistaken Max Fuller achieved his FM title in this manner and probably the only Australian that ever did.

Regards
Sutek
HI Sutek,

You are correct.
FIDE introduced the FM title back in 1978 at the FIDE Congress in Buenos Aires Nov 7-11.

The only wording I can currently find on it from around that time is that it had norms a little lower than that of the IM title.
The first holder of the FM title was Jon L Arnason of Iceland as the 1977 U17 World Champion.

Phil Viner notes in the April 1980 issue of Chess in Australia under the ACF news section that Max qualified overseas for the FM title
Max is first shown with the FM title in the 1st Jan 1981 FIDE list with a rating of 2380.

As far as I can tell the WFM title was not introduced until the FIDE Congress in December 1980.

BTW from a 1981 document I have the performance rating requirement for an FM norm was 2350+. (2450+ for a IM and 2600+ for a GM).
The performance rating for a WFM norm was 2051+. (2150+ for WIM and 2300+ for a WGM).

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 07:40 PM
Have you noticed the scores required to get the FM title since the requirements were changed by FIDE? Heck, scoring 5/9 in this even didn't even get you a look in at an FM title, and 6.5/9 wasn't good enough for an IM title ... are these titles really so easy to get Bill?They are much easier than they should be due to the large number of low rated players contesting it compared to other non "open to all comer" zonals.

Yes, Garbett may have a rating under 2400, but isn't his performance for this tournament somewhere around the 2500 mark? Heck, if I knew I had 3 IM norms under my belt and only needed to get my rating over 2400 to get the title, I think I'd be very motivated to do so!
If Humphrey is nowhere near 2300 strength, Please dont change my words.
I said he was nowhere near the 2300 FIDE rating required for an FM title.

how did he manage to beat Bjelobrk (who is eligible to be an FM) and FM Kulashko and draw with GM Johansen & IM Ker in the same event? What about his =2nd place at the 2003 Australian Open? Obviously he's a no-talent hack who doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the FM title ... :wall:One swallow does not make it spring.
Bjelobrk is rated over 2300 because of consistent performances of 2300 and above, otherwise his rating wouldnt be over 2300(except maybe if he playing in Myanmar ;)).
Jonathan's previous best FIDE was 2230 before is steadily slumped to where it is now.


Apart from the titles awarded in the first zonal, name me one player who you would say made a 'mockery' out of the automatic titles?
Instead of me having to highlight the "mockery" of those titles, perhaps it would be better if you could show me which of them got the IM titles and ever had a rating over 2400 or those with the FM titles ever having a rating over 2300.

I believe the only one is Zhao.

Lucena
04-02-2005, 07:44 PM
So my first oceanic zonal comes to an end. The tournament was very efficiently run, no big problems, there were only a few very minor things. I witnessed first hand poor Brian (in a time scramble) having water spilled onto him by a passing player. One player's side of the clock wasn't registering being pressed, so he demanded (unfairly, IMHO, but I'm not the arbiter) the time lost be added to his clock, but also that it be deducted from his opponent's! There was no evidence of actual clock malfunction, so it looks like the guy just wasn't pressing the clock properly :clap: :rolleyes: . Anyway his opponent stayed calm, and ended up winning anyway.

One of my opponents, who I shall only refer to for the sake of anonymity as "Bob Smith", had the habit of blowing his nose at the board from time to time, which I found a bit disturbing. Anyway I don't really have that as an excuse as I was beaten over the board fair and square, and I can put up with a lot worse than a bit of relatively gentle nose-blowing...

Although I had many perplexing tussles over the board, they paled in comparison with the task of deciphering the scoresheets of Smith-Szuveges(60-70 moves), which I gave up trying to enter into the computer at about move 56 :wall:

pax
04-02-2005, 08:26 PM
Yes, Garbett may have a rating under 2400, but isn't his performance for this tournament somewhere around the 2500 mark? Heck, if I knew I had 3 IM norms under my belt and only needed to get my rating over 2400 to get the title, I think I'd be very motivated to do so!


88 is a hell of a lot of rating points at the over 2300 level. Garbett performed at nearly 2500 over 9 games, and will gain about 22 points. That leaves 66 points to go, and so he will need at least three similarly remarkable performances to get over 2400. A one off performance is one thing, but sustaining it over a length of time is much more difficult. This is why the "one shot" titles are a problem.




If Humphrey is nowhere near 2300 strength, how did he manage to beat Bjelobrk (who is eligible to be an FM) and FM Kulashko and draw with GM Johansen & IM Ker in the same event? What about his =2nd place at the 2003 Australian Open? Obviously he's a no-talent hack who doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the FM title ...


Again, the question is whether he is able to sustain it over a length of time. The traditional means for gaining titles requires proof of sustained performance of a certain level.



Apart from the titles awarded in the first zonal, name me one player who you would say made a 'mockery' out of the automatic titles?

2002:
Mirko Rujevic was just over 2300 when he won the IM title (now 2260). Brian Jones was 2223 when he won the FM title (now 2168). Peter Green (FM) was 2247 (now 2258).

2001:
Chapman (IM) was 2338, now 2388. Wastney (FM) 2276, now 2261. Allen (FM) 2255, now 2263.

2000 (at this event there was one unrated [Fijian] player, and noone rated below 2096):
Zhao (IM) was 2242, now 2442. Watson (FM) was 2260, now 2286. Tindall (FM) was 2196, now 2267.

Not a single one of these players were at the "normal" rating level for the title at the time of achieving it. Only Zhao has since reached that level, and he is a rather special case - also the 2000 event was essentially the closed event that Bill has suggested. I'm not suggesting that any of these players do not deserve their titles - they played by the rules. But it is absolutely clear that most of these players would not (by now) have achieved the titles by normal means.

Pax

Kerry Stead
04-02-2005, 08:44 PM
Instead of me having to highlight the "mockery" of those titles, perhaps it would be better if you could show me which of them got the IM titles and ever had a rating over 2400 or those with the FM titles ever having a rating over 2300.

I believe the only one is Zhao.
Care to also include Smerdon in your list? Chapman is also very close to the 2400 rating at 2388 currently.
Many others aren't too far off the magical mark ...

Had you also noticed that in these 'weak' zonals, players such as Solomon & Wallace have scored 50% and less. Would you consider them weak players as a result, even though they did not perform at a level of a 'zonal' FM??

Bill, the fact is it doesn't matter HOW one got their title, but rather whether the person demonstrates that they are deserving of their title. From memory, the only Australians to gain titles in recent years through the 3 norms method were GM Johansen and IM Wallace (you could also include IM Sandler in this I suppose). Does that mean that our zonal IMs can't compete on a world scale?
What about IMs from overseas who got their titles in a similar fashion? Were the Egyptian IMs that played in the Australian Open in 2001 seen as anything other than IMs, even though they got their titles from zonals?

pax
04-02-2005, 08:58 PM
Care to also include Smerdon in your list? Chapman is also very close to the 2400 rating at 2388 currently.
Many others aren't too far off the magical mark ...


You specifically excluded the first Zonal. If you want to talk about Smerdon, we also need to talk about Berezina, Feldman, Stawski, Dwyer, Weeks, etc etc.

Duff McKagan
04-02-2005, 09:19 PM
Well, I think the players in this zonal have proven that they are deserving of the titles gained, so well done to all of them :)
Hey Bill, following the official rules, who actually gets the WFM titles from the zonal?

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 09:25 PM
One of my opponents, who I shall only refer to for the sake of anonymity as "Bob Smith", had the habit of blowing his nose at the board from time to time, which I found a bit disturbing. Anyway I don't really have that as an excuse as I was beaten over the board fair and square, and I can put up with a lot worse than a bit of relatively gentle nose-blowing...

Gareth, wasn't there an incidence involving you, Tim Reilly and a packet of potato chips many years ago? I think you give as good as you get based on what I heard about that. ;)

Duff McKagan
04-02-2005, 09:28 PM
Hey Bruce, good to hear that you got back on the net... you going on msn sometime?

pax
04-02-2005, 09:30 PM
Well, I think the players in this zonal have proven that they are deserving of the titles gained, so well done to all of them :)
Hey Bill, following the official rules, who actually gets the WFM titles from the zonal?

By the rules Bill described it's still Reid and Oliver if Song is not included (due to already having qualified), or Reid and Song otherwise.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 09:31 PM
Care to also include Smerdon in your list?
You said in your post other than the 1st Zonal.
As such I ignored it.


Chapman is also very close to the 2400 rating at 2388 currently.
Many others aren't too far off the magical mark ...
Close but no cigar.


Had you also noticed that in these 'weak' zonals, players such as Solomon & Wallace have scored 50% and less. Would you consider them weak players as a result, even though they did not perform at a level of a 'zonal' FM??
Immaterial.
They have proven their strength by via norms or rating.


Bill, the fact is it doesn't matter HOW one got their title, but rather whether the person demonstrates that they are deserving of their title. From memory, the only Australians to gain titles in recent years through the 3 norms method were GM Johansen and IM Wallace (you could also include IM Sandler in this I suppose). Does that mean that our zonal IMs can't compete on a world scale?
You are evading the issue.
The Oceamia zonals are extremely weak by world standards.
The vast majoiry have demonstraed that according to their FIDE ratings they are nowehere near as strong as IM and FM's who got them via norms or rating.


What about IMs from overseas who got their titles in a similar fashion? Were the Egyptian IMs that played in the Australian Open in 2001 seen as anything other than IMs, even though they got their titles from zonals?
I have no issue with zonal titles if the zonal is sufficiently strong. The Oceania ones dont meet that criteria.

1min_grandmaster
04-02-2005, 09:55 PM
There seems to be some confusion about who is geting what titles. I was following Gary Bekker very closely while he was carefully working out who gets what titles.

IM: Paul Garbett
FM: Jonathan Humphrey & Igor Bjelobrk

WIM: Narelle Szuveges
WFM: Angela Song & Shannon Oliver

So basically, even though some players like Bjelobrk and Song may have already qualified for titles (Bjelobrk being 2300+ and Song from the World Juniors), other players don't get the titles.

Regarding the tournament, it was absolutely excellent. I can barely find a single fault from the point of view of the way that it was organised. I have taken lots of photos of the playing venue and will post them up when I am not so tired (I've just come back to Sydney).

pax
04-02-2005, 10:21 PM
WIM: Narelle Szuveges
WFM: Angela Song & Shannon Oliver

Apologies, I miscounted.



So basically, even though some players like Bjelobrk and Song may have already qualified for titles (Bjelobrk being 2300+ and Song from the World Juniors), other players don't get the titles.

That's a bit of an odd situation. It means who gets the titles is a function of when the FIDE title commission meets!! I imagine Charamova (not Reid) and Guthrie could probably make a case if they chose to.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 10:54 PM
That's a bit of an odd situation. It means who gets the titles is a function of when the FIDE title commission meets!! I imagine Charamova (not Reid) and Guthrie could probably make a case if they chose to.
Bjelobrk is the legitimate recipient of the second FM title as he currently does not have the FM title (even though he could have had it since July 2003 if he had applied for it).

As for Angela getting the WFM from the Asian junior on what is that based. According to the FIDE regulations only =1st(max 3) gets the WFM. Angela came outright second half a point behind first. That got her the Woman Candidate Master title which you can also get by achieving a published rating of 2000.

Duff McKagan
04-02-2005, 11:44 PM
What's the point of them calculating Bucholtz scores if they don't use them? Seems like a fairer option than deleting early rounds to get a newly calculated sum of progressive scores. That seems to favour how people played in the latter part of the tournament rather than the overall tournament.