PDA

View Full Version : Australian Clubs Teams Championships



paulb
30-09-2004, 12:56 PM
Does anyone have any info on this?

Cheers - PaulB

jenni
30-09-2004, 01:45 PM
Does anyone have any info on this?

Cheers - PaulB

Not too much - Shannon has been SMS'ing me after each day, but it has mainly been centred on her games. She did say she thought her team (Uni of Sydney), were winning, but then added "I think".

There are 4 teams playing, so they are playing a double round robin. 2 rounds on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Sydney Uni team, is very strong - Zong-Yuan Zhao, Ronald Yu, Justin Tan, Michael Lip, Michael Yu, Shannon Oliver, Jessica Kinder, and another Gold Coast girl.

However Shannon has blown two games she probably shouldn't have and Michael Lip drew with the Suncoast player, so that probably aco****s for the "I think".

Garvinator
30-09-2004, 01:48 PM
Not too much - Shannon has been SMS'ing me after each day, but it has mainly been centred on her games. She did say she thought her team (Uni of Sydney), were winning, but then added "I think".

There are 4 teams playing, so they are playing a double round robin. 2 rounds on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
ok, why is there no play on tuesdays or thursdays?

arosar
30-09-2004, 02:09 PM
This is another one of those dubious tourneys, isn't it? Is it even a properly ACF-blessed event? And how about that rule about having sheilas in the team? It should be dumped immediately. If not, then they can call it the Gold Coast Teams or Gardiner's Own Club Championships.

AR

paulb
30-09-2004, 09:06 PM
Not too much - Shannon has been SMS'ing me after each day, but it has mainly been centred on her games. She did say she thought her team (Uni of Sydney), were winning, but then added "I think".

There are 4 teams playing, so they are playing a double round robin. 2 rounds on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Sydney Uni team, is very strong - Zong-Yuan Zhao, Ronald Yu, Justin Tan, Michael Lip, Michael Yu, Shannon Oliver, Jessica Kinder, and another Gold Coast girl.

However Shannon has blown two games she probably shouldn't have and Michael Lip drew with the Suncoast player, so that probably aco****s for the "I think".

Thanks Jenni

Garvinator
01-10-2004, 12:45 AM
ok, why is there no play on tuesdays or thursdays?
anyone? :eh:

jenni
01-10-2004, 11:48 AM
anyone? :eh:

Sorry - internet has been down since yesterday - ADSL is such a substandard product!

The idea was to have a major social element - something all other sports have and chess does not (probably why internet chess is so popular, as it allows a social environment.) e.g. tennis can be played at an elite level or have a social tennis environment. The idea was to have a teams comp where getting together and socialising and having days to sightsee was part of it. The free days also allowed more rounds if a large no of teams played.

jenni
01-10-2004, 11:57 AM
This is another one of those dubious tourneys, isn't it? Is it even a properly ACF-blessed event? And how about that rule about having sheilas in the team? It should be dumped immediately. If not, then they can call it the Gold Coast Teams or Gardiner's Own Club Championships.

AR

You've got your wish - in fact Graeme would have cancelled this year, except the uni of NSW team threw a wobbly, because they had already booked and paid for their airfares. Graeme is far too busy to waste time on something that has not been supported by the rest of Australia. (I have to admit the 3 female rule has been a bit of a killer - maybe 1 female and a few bonus points if you field more than 1?)

However why don't you get off your backside, put your money where your mouth is and run a more successful one? :evil: Always ready to pull down, never do anything to create.

So yes this event is now dead, unless someone else steps forward and takes it over. Very sad as the one I went to last year was a great event. Graeme and Kerry Corker were right - chess does need something like this to keep some enthusiasm going. However they over estimated both the ability of male chess players to get females to play and the enthusiasm for travelling interstate.

arosar
01-10-2004, 12:07 PM
However why don't you get off your backside, put your money where your mouth is and run a more successful one? :evil: Always ready to pull down, never do anything to create.

Don't get upset. Geez!

It's a Marxist concept you see jenni: division of labour.

AR

Rincewind
01-10-2004, 12:55 PM
It's a Marxist concept you see jenni: division of labour.

That's ironic. It's people like you that hold the Marxist ideology back. ;)

Garvinator
01-10-2004, 01:15 PM
You've got your wish - in fact Graeme would have cancelled this year, except the uni of NSW team threw a wobbly, because they had already booked and paid for their airfares. Graeme is far too busy to waste time on something that has not been supported by the rest of Australia. (I have to admit the 3 female rule has been a bit of a killer - maybe 1 female and a few bonus points if you field more than 1?)

However why don't you get off your backside, put your money where your mouth is and run a more successful one? :evil: Always ready to pull down, never do anything to create.

So yes this event is now dead, unless someone else steps forward and takes it over. Very sad as the one I went to last year was a great event. Graeme and Kerry Corker were right - chess does need something like this to keep some enthusiasm going. However they over estimated both the ability of male chess players to get females to play and the enthusiasm for travelling interstate.


I fully support the concept, even with three females, but unless the tournament uses mainly juniors, it is always going to struggle to get numbers at sunshine coast. As has been discussed many times before, there a quite a few high standard weekenders to play in during the year, combined with the national championship etc. This is a large financial imposition for most players. So for most players, to add another week long tournament on to that is too much.

Trent Parker
01-10-2004, 01:34 PM
Perhaps it could be an online thing??

ursogr8
01-10-2004, 01:34 PM
I fully support the concept, even with three females, but unless the tournament uses mainly juniors, it is always going to struggle to get numbers at sunshine coast. As has been discussed many times before, there a quite a few high standard weekenders to play in during the year, combined with the national championship etc. This is a large financial imposition for most players. So for most players, to add another week long tournament on to that is too much.

gg''
Interesting to reflect why BHCC did not send a team.

First, a notice was placed by one of our adult ladies calling for EOI to form a team. I don't think she got much interest because the note was rather scruffy.

Second, one of our experienced organisers tried to drum up a bit of interest. Failed. Some of the feedback was........how do the teams get balanced so that the games are competitive. The was a lot of doubt on the wide range of ratings.

Now this may be tangential to the competition objectives....but it entered into the decision-making of some.

starter

Garvinator
01-10-2004, 02:40 PM
my personal opinion is that from what i have seen is that it is not well promoted widely. I had to really struggle to get any information about the ACTC. It seems that even though it is meant to be a tournament of large status, it has a small promotion schedule and range. It is supposed to be for the whole of australia, but is promoted in a small way and i dont think nationally promoted (could be wrong).

If the tournament is to get larger, it needs a few changes. The first one being the amount of promotion. This doesnt need to be expensive. Also there needs to be a clearer explaination of the rules and how they work- to a LARGER audience.

Kevin Bonham
01-10-2004, 05:56 PM
This is another one of those dubious tourneys, isn't it?

No.


Is it even a properly ACF-blessed event?

Yes.


And how about that rule about having sheilas in the team?

I appreciate the intention behind it but I have to say that that rule has prevented Tassie from even seriously considering fielding a team. I suspect this would also be true of some other clubs.

Kerry Stead
02-10-2004, 08:02 PM
I think the tournament has the potential to be very good, but whether it was underpromotion (in the sense of advertising, not anything chess related people), rule restrictions, travel cost, time needed, quality of opposition available, or some other factor, teams have obviously been unwilling to commit to this event.
I suspect after this years reduction in entries from last year that Graeme will not be wanting to organise the event in 2005, which is a shame. I played in the 2003 event and had a great time - I think what the event intended itself to be - a strong teams compettion with a social aspect - is exactly what it was.
I know personally I couldn't play this year due to work committments, however the others in my team from last year were all keen to go back (as I would have if I had the time available), so obviously there is something of an endorsement for the tournament in that sense that those that have been want to go back. I can't speak for the other teams however.
Perhaps the format could be modified to say a 4 person team, with 1 female per team ... that way you might get multiple teams from one club ... and the onus to find 3 females to form a team would obviously be reduced. I think the format and timing work well - it needs to be during the school holiday period - but the big question is exactly what changes would get bums on seat, and if some changes would increase numbers, who would be prepared to run the event?

Paul S
03-10-2004, 02:52 AM
........................who would be prepared to run the event?

Why not get Amiel Rosario to run it? :P ;) :lol: :hmm: :owned:

Garvinator
03-10-2004, 05:39 PM
ok, from having a look at the results of the actc, there doesnt seem to be any restriction on the ratings of the players in your side. The only restriction seems to be on sex. I think this would be one of the biggest reasons as to why so few teams participated in this event.

Have a look at the ratings of the four sides:

UNSW: 2400, 2232, 2100, 2058, 1893, 1650, 1093 and one unrated player
Av rating on 7 players: 1918

Bullwinkle: 2044, 2026, 1821, 1709, 1688, 1670, 1589, 1496, 1347, 1152, 1123, 2229 (one game against S. Solomon)
Using top eight rated players not including the one game against Solo: Av rating: 1755.38

Gold Coast: 2448, 1924, 1864, 1646, 1523, 1413, 978, 665
Average rating: 1557.63

Suncoast: No player higher than 1900.

The results:

UNSW: 35
Bullwinkle: 29
Gold Coast: 22.5
Suncoast: 9.5

draw your own conclusions, but i think the rules are one of the main reasons why there are so few teams.

shaun
03-10-2004, 10:29 PM
Like a number of other good events in Australian Chess, this tournament is suffering from "Second Year Syndrome". After the big effort in getting it going and making sure enough teams turned up in the first year, it is unsuprising that there was a decline in the second year. This has happened in other Australian events, with the Shore Inn Australian Rapidplay in the early 90's springing to mind.
But as others have observed, maybe rules/format changes are needed. I personally think that 8 players is too many, and either teams of 4 or 6 (with reserves) would be better. I am also a fan of the 4NCL "each team must contain at least 1 male and 1 female" rule, rather than ALP style "35% winnable seats for females" rule.
Also, with smaller teams, you are more likely to get a broader spread of talent throughout the event, although there is guarantee that an all GM team might not show up and walk away with the event. Of course if organisers wanted to avoid that unlikely happening, then an average rating limit is another rule to be considered (like the US amateurs).
And finally, a change in venue may help (eg Wollongong, Taree or Ballarat). But if the event isn't going to be attractive on its own, I do not think the venue will make much of a possitive difference.

Garvinator
03-10-2004, 10:34 PM
Like a number of other good events in Australian Chess, this tournament is suffering from "Second Year Syndrome". After the big effort in getting it going and making sure enough teams turned up in the first year, it is unsuprising that there was a decline in the second year. This has happened in other Australian events, with the Shore Inn Australian Rapidplay in the early 90's springing to mind.
But as others have observed, maybe rules/format changes are needed. I personally think that 8 players is too many, and either teams of 4 or 6 (with reserves) would be better. I am also a fan of the 4NCL "each team must contain at least 1 male and 1 female" rule, rather than ALP style "35% winnable seats for females" rule.
Also, with smaller teams, you are more likely to get a broader spread of talent throughout the event, although there is guarantee that an all GM team might not show up and walk away with the event. Of course if organisers wanted to avoid that unlikely happening, then an average rating limit is another rule to be considered (like the US amateurs).
And finally, a change in venue may help (eg Wollongong, Taree or Ballarat). But if the event isn't going to be attractive on its own, I do not think the venue will make much of a possitive difference.


i think a maximum rating board limit would be best, but each captain can move a player up boards if they wish ie improving juniors etc. as for venue, of course if it was held in sydney or melbourne, then there would be more teams, but then that would continue the centralisation of events, instead of trying to get more large events outside of sydney and melbourne.