PDA

View Full Version : 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open



Pages : [1] 2

Garvinator
13-10-2004, 04:44 PM
Since we dont seem to have a thread for the open that hasnt been locked, here is one.

skip to my lou
13-10-2004, 05:11 PM
The reason the other threads got locked is because the thread title is not specific enough and the thread ends up with 500 posts. Please choose a more specific thread title.

Garvinator
13-10-2004, 05:13 PM
The reason the other threads got locked is because the thread title is not specific enough and the thread ends up with 500 posts. Please choose a more specific thread title.
this is a specific thread title i thought :doh: the others are about the minor, the junior, the schools and so this one can be about the open.

skip to my lou
13-10-2004, 05:18 PM
Specific, e.g: Accomodation, Getting There, Recreation, Open Time Controls etc........

Bill Gletsos
13-10-2004, 06:48 PM
this is a specific thread title i thought :doh: the others are about the minor, the junior, the schools and so this one can be about the open.
Well you event is actually the 2004 Australian Open since you start in 2004.

Garvinator
14-10-2004, 12:03 AM
Well you event is actually the 2004 Australian Open since you start in 2004.
dont attempt to play silly buggers with me, you know full well it is the 2005 Australian Open. :whistle:

Ring-A-Rosie
14-10-2004, 10:03 AM
I have been doing some research and urge players to stay at the Mercure during the Open and Junior. We are getting a great deal and need to support this for future years!

The best deals I can find on the net for the Mercure Grand Chalet in Mt Buller are for November/December:
$125 per night
Full breakfast for 2 persons, access to all sporting facilities/pool/spa. Children stay free. Additional adult $65 per night.

I can't remember what the deal is for the Open or Juniors, but I am sure it is way better than this.

-RR

ursogr8
14-10-2004, 10:15 AM
Are they the same phillipino's who were going to play in the Vic Open - starter?


RAR

The VIC Open potential entrants looked like one ridgy-didge and a number of tourists. Not the same names as appearing for Mt Buller.

starter

jenni
14-10-2004, 10:22 AM
I have been doing some research and urge players to stay at the Mercure during the Open and Junior. We are getting a great deal and need to support this for future years!

The best deals I can find on the net for the Mercure Grand Chalet in Mt Buller are for November/December:
$125 per night
Full breakfast for 2 persons, access to all sporting facilities/pool/spa. Children stay free. Additional adult $65 per night.

I can't remember what the deal is for the Open or Juniors, but I am sure it is way better than this.

-RR

More than a hint of sarcasm here :)

To make it easy - 2 adults (full breakfast etc etc) is $120 extra adult is $50.

For the juniors, 3 juniors in a room is $90 (continental breakfast.) Same adult rates as for Open. Juniors are regarded as under 18. Normally a child is under 14. As soon as a junior is in a room with an adult, then adult rate applies. This has been a problem for the juniors, where often you have a child/adult combination.

I think the Mercure is working well for the schools comp, where schools are putting multiple children in a room and it is only for 2 or 3 nights.

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 12:15 PM
dont attempt to play silly buggers with me, you know full well it is the 2005 Australian Open. :whistle:
The only one apparently being a silly bugger is you gg as what you are saying is no more correct than what I said. :hmm:

Although the winner will be recognised as the 2005 Australian Open Champion the correct name for the event is the 2004/2005 Australian Open just like the previous Australian Championship held in Adelaide was the 2003/2004 Australian Championship where Gary Lane is recognised as the 2004 Australian Champion.

Garvinator
14-10-2004, 12:20 PM
The only one apparently being a silly bugger is you gg as what you are saying is no more correct than what I said. :hmm:
dang, you got me, i was playing silly buggers :owned: :owned: :P

ursogr8
14-10-2004, 12:22 PM
The only one apparently being a silly bugger is you gg as what you are saying is no more correct than what I said. :hmm:

Although the winner will be recognised as the 2005 Australian Open Champion the correct name for the event is the 2004/2005 Australian Open just like the previous Australian Championship held in Adelaide was the 2003/2004 Australian Championship where Gary Lane is recognised as the 2004 Australian Champion.

Btw Bill

Remember all those names that were similarly out-of-synch. on the ACF Australian Junior trophy, do you now have a list of true actuals?

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 12:52 PM
Btw Bill

Remember all those names that were similarly out-of-synch. on the ACF Australian Junior trophy, do you now have a list of true actuals?

regards
starter
All available evidence shows that with regards the Aus junior trophy there is no out-of-sync similarity.
As an example the 1950's are clearly incorrect as evidenced by articles written in the relevant Chess World magazines of the time.

With regards the Aus championship and Aus Open then I would need to check out the records from around 1969 onwards.

e.g. with regards the Aus championship
1953 L.Steiner
1955 J.Purdy
1957 K. Ozols & S. Lazare
1959 L. Steiner
1960 L. Endzelins
1963 J. Purdy
1965 D. Hamilton
1969 W. Browne
1970 A. Flatow
1972 M. Fuller & T.Hay
and has proceed on even years since up to 2004 G. Lane.

Now the question is should Endzelins be 60 or really 61.
Also what happened between 65 and 69 and how does the 70, 72 etc fit in.

For the Aus Open
1971 L. Portisch (HUN)
1973 M.L Fuller
1975 M.L Fuller
and has proceeded on odd years up to 2003 John-Paul Wallace.

Now what needs to be checked is how these relate to the actual years of the events.
The 2003 Open actually started in Jan 2003 not Dec 2002 so quite rightly would seem to be 2003, however the 2001 event started on Dec 28th of 2000 so should this make it the 2000 instead of the 2001.

Since the Open is only a recent event in comparison to the championship it will be interesting to check how the championship year was determined prior to say 1969.

Of course I suspect that irrespective of all this is what the ACF deemed the relevant year to be.

I'll report back after I do some investigation.

ursogr8
14-10-2004, 01:30 PM
All available evidence shows that with regards the Aus junior trophy there is no out-of-sync similarity.
As an example the 1950's are clearly incorrect as evidenced by articles written in the relevant Chess World magazines of the time.

With regards the Aus championship and Aus Open then I would need to check out the records from around 1969 onwards.

e.g. with regards the Aus championship
1953 L.Steiner
1955 J.Purdy
1957 K. Ozols & S. Lazare
1959 L. Steiner
1960 L. Endzelins
1963 J. Purdy
1965 D. Hamilton
1969 W. Browne
1970 A. Flatow
1972 M. Fuller & T.Hay
and has proceed on even years since up to 2004 G. Lane.

Now the question is should Endzelins be 60 or really 61.
Also what happened between 65 and 69 and how does the 70, 72 etc fit in.

For the Aus Open
1971 L. Portisch (HUN)
1973 M.L Fuller
1975 M.L Fuller
and has proceeded on odd years up to 2003 John-Paul Wallace.

Now what needs to be checked is how these relate to the actual years of the events.
The 2003 Open actually started in Jan 2003 not Dec 2002 so quite rightly would seem to be 2003, however the 2001 event started on Dec 28th of 2000 so should this make it the 2000 instead of the 2001.

Since the Open is only a recent event in comparison to the championship it will be interesting to check how the championship year was determined prior to say 1969.

Of course I suspect that irrespective of all this is what the ACF deemed the relevant year to be.

I'll report back after I do some investigation.

There you are r''a''g''g''y''

Ask Bill a question in the nicest possible way and you get this sort of answer.
But call him a silly b.ugger and you will get what you got.

starter

Garvinator
14-10-2004, 01:32 PM
There you are r''a''g''g''y''

Ask Bill a question in the nicest possible way and you get this sort of answer.
But call him a silly b.ugger and you will get what you got.

starter
starter you are being a mischievous maker, i dont think Bill or I were actually debating anything.

Stop trying to drive up post counts :lol:

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 01:44 PM
There you are r''a''g''g''y''

Ask Bill a question in the nicest possible way and you get this sort of answer.
But call him a silly b.ugger and you will get what you got.

starter
Especially when the one making the silly bugger claim is being one himself. ;) :lol:

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 01:47 PM
starter you are being a mischievous maker, i dont think Bill or were actually debating anything.
It is just more a case of starter being starter and highlighting a difference in posting technique. :lol: :lol:
As you say we werent debating anything.


Stop trying to drive up post counts :lol:
Since you and I are red carded from his post count betting, I dont think that is an issue. ;)

ursogr8
14-10-2004, 02:03 PM
It is just more a case of starter being starter and highlighting a difference in posting technique. :lol: :lol:
As you say we werent debating anything.


Since you and I are red carded from his post count betting, I dont think that is an issue. ;)

Where were you two silly b.uggers when Jeo wantonly, capriciously, and without shame or compunction, deleted posts by a new starter to the BB?

I will tell you. You were off debating safe, soft topics like "does 2004 come before 2005".

Your post count totals are outliers for a reason. :uhoh:

starter

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 02:16 PM
Where were you two silly b.uggers when Jeo wantonly, capriciously, and without shame or compunction, deleted posts by a new starter to the BB?
Well their first thread was deleted when they mentioned Lord Voldemort.
Their post was deleted quite reasonably from an announcements thread. It was clear to them after it was deleted why because gg had posted a very visible do not post here right near the end of the thread following their now deleted post.


I will tell you. You were off debating safe, soft topics like "does 2004 come before 2005".
I cant speak for gg but I was debating accuracy.
Perhaps you just considered gg use of 2004 instead of 2004/2005 a case of "marketing" puff. :owned:
:lol: :lol:


Your post count totals are outliers for a reason. :uhoh:
I cant comment on gg but in my case its because I'm prpeared to comment on virtually all chess related topics. just imagaine what my count would be like if I actually bothered regularly posting in the non chess threads. ;)

Garvinator
14-10-2004, 02:20 PM
I cant speak for gg but I was debating accuracy.
Perhaps you just considered gg use of 2004 instead of 2004/2005 a case of "marketing" puff. :owned:
:lol: :lol:
i thought i said that it was 2005, you said it should be 2004 first off ;)

Bill Gletsos
14-10-2004, 02:38 PM
i thought i said that it was 2005, you said it should be 2004 first off ;)
I was referring to the final outcome with regards "marketing" puff and not how we got there. ;)

bobby1972
21-10-2004, 02:59 PM
what are the chances of more than 100 players in the open,penrith had 110 or so,

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 04:13 PM
what are the chances of more than 100 players in the open,penrith had 110 or so,
we are very likely to get more than 100 players for the open. Things are a little slow at the moment, but the online payment option etc will be ready soon.

bobby1972
21-10-2004, 04:19 PM
I Find That Very Hard To Believe Any Bet Its Below 90 ,mtbuller Is Got To Be Harder To Get To Than Penrith

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 04:25 PM
I Find That Very Hard To Believe Any Bet Its Below 90 ,mtbuller Is Got To Be Harder To Get To Than Penrith
Actually it might be interesting to compare the prize money for the Open for Mt. Buller & Penrith.

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 04:35 PM
BTW the Open at Penrith had 111 players and the Minor 38.
On top of that 13 players took part in an event called the Classic and another 12 took part in an event called Week1.

bobby1972
21-10-2004, 04:40 PM
Man If They Get Say Less Than 90 Will It Be Considered A Failure He He He

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 04:44 PM
Man If They Get Say Less Than 90 Will It Be Considered A Failure He He He
please define what you mean by failure?

arosar
21-10-2004, 04:51 PM
please define what you mean by failure?

He just did gray.

Can you tell us how many people have signed up?

AR

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 04:54 PM
Actually it might be interesting to compare the prize money for the Open for Mt. Buller & Penrith.

ok from a quick search, i could find at http://austopen.chesskit.com/download/entry_form.pdf

The 2003 Australian open has prizes listed as:

Prizes: $1500 $1000 $750 $500 $250 plus rating/specials

The 2001 Australian open at http://www.dsu.dk/aktiv/c075.htm

Prizes

The Open prize fund will be at least $A11,000.

1st Prize is $A3,000 with at least 6 place prizes overall with 2nd $A1,800 and 3rd $A1,200.


The Mt Buller Australian Open Chess Championships

Prizes: $18,500 in prizes, 1st-10th place, + rating prizes. Top prize is $4500!

Prices: $90 concession, $130 adult (early bird fees)

Remember this is a quick search, if anyone has more info, please add :)

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 04:57 PM
He just did gray. i want ascaro to elaborate further.


Can you tell us how many people have signed up? from what i know, i think we have about 15 in total at the moment, remembering we are still two months away from the final closing date.

bobby1972
21-10-2004, 05:05 PM
Ok If You Get 5 Gms And 50 Turn Up Its Ok,if You Get Less Than 2 Gm And Less Than 100 Its Bad Thats Only My Opinion

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 05:18 PM
Ok If You Get 5 Gms And 50 Turn Up Its Ok,if You Get Less Than 2 Gm And Less Than 100 Its Bad Thats Only My Opinion
ok we will have five gms and we are expecting about 100 open players.

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2004, 11:05 PM
I'm coming over - have paid for accommodation and am going to get my air ticket shortly - will post entry fee in the last week of November for cash flow reasons. :P

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 12:02 AM
I'm coming over - have paid for accommodation and am going to get my air ticket shortly - will post entry fee in the last week of November for cash flow reasons. :P
to alot of other ppl reading this thread, i suspect that quite a few players will be doing what Kevin is going to do, post their entry fee very close to the closing dates. Kevin, online payment should be available shortly if you wish to use that instead.

Will you be flying virgin or jetstar?

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 01:22 AM
Will you be flying virgin or jetstar?

The latter. Coming over the day before, going back the day after.

bobby1972
22-10-2004, 10:44 AM
yes 5 gms thats makes it very BIG,cant miss this one

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 01:07 PM
I think that after all that happened with this event, to still get 5 GMs is an excellent effort. It's especially pleasing that Darryl will be playing.

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 01:26 PM
I think that after all that happened with this event, to still get 5 GMs is an excellent effort. It's especially pleasing that Darryl will be playing.
also with the 5 confirmed gms playing and maybe a couple more to come if they wish, quite a few IM's will play for the chance of getting a gm norm. The chance to get a gm norm in our country is rare, so this is a good opportunity for IM's. Then that flows on for FM's too.

Apparently Darryl signed up as soon as there was a change of organisers :uhoh:

arosar
22-10-2004, 01:50 PM
Apparently Darryl signed up as soon as there was a change of organisers :uhoh:

First, a big announcement on the BB that the unmentionable is not involved.

Then the same in this week's enewsletter. Now that quote above.

What does the unmentionable have to say about all this?

AR

jenni
22-10-2004, 02:09 PM
What does the unmentionable have to say about all this?

AR

I though Lord Voldemort had been gagged (at least on here...)

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 02:14 PM
First, a big announcement on the BB that the unmentionable is not involved.

Then the same in this week's enewsletter. Now that quote above.

What does the unmentionable have to say about all this?

AR
All that has been done is just to emphasise that their is a change of organisers and that the previous organiser has nothing to do with the current running of events.

arosar
22-10-2004, 02:18 PM
All that has been done is just to emphasise that their is a change of organisers and that the previous organiser has nothing to do with the current running of events.

No man . . . you went further. You suggested that your mob is more trustworthy to the GM than the unmentionable.

And look, jenni's calling the unmentionable names! Nasty . . .

AR

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 02:22 PM
No man . . . you went further. You suggested that your mob is more trustworthy to the GM than the unmentionable.

And look, jenni's calling the unmentionable names! Nasty . . .

AR
i suggested no such thing :hand: you are trolling again and will promptly be ignored. If others want to debate with you, that is up to them, but i am not going to waste my time debating with you :hand:

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 09:31 PM
I though Lord Voldemort had been gagged (at least on here...)
Nice to see someone else following my usage of Lord V in place of just saying "the unmentionable" or "he who shall not be mentioned". ;)

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 09:39 PM
No man . . . you went further. You suggested that your mob is more trustworthy to the GM than the unmentionable.
Did he really?
If you followed the original discussions on this board about Johansen's participation it just seemed the previous organsier and he could not come to a mutually acceptable arrangement.
gg's comment simply implies there was no such issue with the Darryl and the new organisers.


And look, jenni's calling the unmentionable names! Nasty . . .
Incorrect.
Anyone who follows Harry Potter knows that the term "he who shall not be mentioned" is Lord Voldemort.

george
25-10-2004, 01:52 PM
Hi All,

The reason I had to post about David C here and in the Newsletter is that for some reason and I dont know why a number of persons contacted me re participation in the Open asking specifically if David was in any way involved they would not come - mind you there may be many people who may not come because David is not organising the events but as yet those persons have not contacted me.

Therefore as its my job to maximise participants I thought it would be a good idea to get the message out to make it very clear without inferring anything about anyone.

Regards
George

george
01-11-2004, 09:50 AM
Hi All,

The three Italian players are being brought to this tournament by way of extra funding from Mr Grollo - he wanted Italian titled players and was willing to put extra resources to ensure such.

Only GM's are getting any financial assitance from the Tournament Budget to play in the Lidums Australian Open.

I hope this clarifies some issues for people - if IM's wish to discuss paid simuls , lectures etc please contact me I am trying to make this tournament as attractive to ALL players as the budget can support.

Regards
George Howard
Main Organiser Lidums Australian Open

Kerry Stead
01-11-2004, 12:10 PM
Just an update on the performances of the Italians at the Olympiad:

IM Ennio Arlandi - 4.5/10 perf 2382
IM Carlo D'Amore - 8/10 perf 2579
IM Elena Sedina - 6.5/10 perf 2244
WFM Eleonora Ambrosi - 5.5/11 perf 2068

Rincewind
01-11-2004, 12:22 PM
Just an update on the performances of the Italians at the Olympiad:

IM Ennio Arlandi - 4.5/10 perf 2382
IM Carlo D'Amore - 8/10 perf 2579
IM Elena Sedina - 6.5/10 perf 2244
WFM Eleonora Ambrosi - 5.5/11 perf 2068

Is that the open team? Fielding women on boards 3 and 4?

Kerry Stead
01-11-2004, 12:53 PM
Is that the open team? Fielding women on boards 3 and 4?

Arlandi was board 3 for the Open team
D'Amore was board 4 for the Open team
Sedina was board 1 for the women's team
Ambrosi was board 2 for the women's team

D'Amore was =2nd on percentage score for board 4, although looks like on tie break (rating performance) he was 4th. Not sure if he got a medal or not. Kaidanov (USA) and Guseinov (Azerbaijan) also scored 8/10.

george
01-11-2004, 01:36 PM
Hi Kerry,

Ambrossi is not coming the other have been confirmed and their flights booked.

WGM Sedina will be one of the two coaches coaching for Mercure patrons during the Junior.

George Howard

george
01-11-2004, 01:51 PM
Hi All,

Please note Elena Sedina is a WGM as well as an IM.

George Howard

eclectic
01-11-2004, 02:17 PM
Hi Kerry,

Ambrossi is not coming the other have been confirmed and their flights booked.

WGM Sedina will be one of the two coaches coaching for Mercure patrons during the Junior.

George Howard

are any negotiations underway re a replacement for ambrossi ?

eclectic

Rincewind
01-11-2004, 02:18 PM
Arlandi was board 3 for the Open team
D'Amore was board 4 for the Open team
Sedina was board 1 for the women's team
Ambrosi was board 2 for the women's team

D'Amore was =2nd on percentage score for board 4, although looks like on tie break (rating performance) he was 4th. Not sure if he got a medal or not. Kaidanov (USA) and Guseinov (Azerbaijan) also scored 8/10.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 02:24 PM
Hi All,

Please note Elena Sedina is a WGM as well as an IM.

George Howard
The IM title is more impressive. ;)

george
01-11-2004, 02:47 PM
Bill your a stirrer!

George

george
01-11-2004, 02:52 PM
Hi All,

No there is no replacement for Ambrosi. As I have stated a few times the finances to fund the Italians comes from Mercure/Grollo via an independent stream to the tournament funds.

I think they are happy to have less outgoings but still have Italian National chessplayers and give Mercure clients value added during the Juniors.

George Howard

Ian Rout
01-11-2004, 03:13 PM
Bill your a stirrer!

George
Although this may be true, in this instance Bill isn't stirring, it's simply a fact (see FIDE Handbook) that an IM title requires better results.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 04:50 PM
Although this may be true, in this instance Bill isn't stirring, it's simply a fact (see FIDE Handbook) that an IM title requires better results.
My point exactly.

george
01-11-2004, 06:11 PM
I am not saying Bill is wrong but the relevant values of IM and WGM can become a hot topic of conversation especially amongst women chess players - thats why I called him a stirrer not because he was necessarily wrong but in the world of Women's chess if you want to start an argument get a WGM who hasnt got an IM title and a woman who has the IM title debating the relevant merits of each title.

I know what FIDE say but in the case of WGM / IM Sedina she has both.

Regards
George Howard

bobby1972
06-11-2004, 10:54 PM
the early entry fee (save $40) ends at the end of the month so a player list should be put here to entice late entries

Garvinator
06-11-2004, 11:09 PM
the early entry fee (save $40) ends at the end of the month so a player list should be put here to entice late entries
there will be a player list at www.mtbullerchess.com and also on here in the mt buller announcements thread.

eclectic
09-11-2004, 03:15 PM
from announcements ...


Hello Everyone,

Wasnt sure where to type this, so as it applies to all the mt buller tournaments, here seemed right.

I have done some research on the average daily temperatures at mount buller during january.

The average daily temperature is 16 degrees
The average nightly temperature is 7 degrees.

Some days/nights even have minus temperatures on average.

So my advice, pack your warm clothes. There has not been one day on record of over 30 degrees.

Website: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/avera...cw_083024.shtml


and how is the attendance thermometer looking ?

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
25-11-2004, 05:00 PM
here is a virtual tour of abom restaurant. It looked a little different when i was up there, but gives a good idea of the size etc.

http://www.dreamcatcher.com.au/panoramas/vbulabombar/index.htm

george
02-12-2004, 11:43 AM
Hi All,

I have been waiting for the early bird time to expire which it now has for the Open. I am preparing for the schools this weekend but on 6th December I will send ******** the updated entries. At the moment we have about 60 confirmed entries for the Lidums Australian Open Chess Championship which is about where I was hoping to be at this stage in the Entry Cycle.

Regards
George Howard

Garvinator
12-12-2004, 06:26 PM
Hello everyone,

REGARDING THE LIDUMS AUSTRALIAN OPEN-

Due to the short time that the online entries have been available and some uncertainty regarding where to send mail entries to and who to make them out to, we are EXTENDING the closing date by one week till the 22nd.

This means that online entries can be made until the 22nd and postal entries must be recieved by the organising committee by the 22nd.

Cheers,

Garvin Gray
Mt Buller Chess Tournaments Organiser

Garvinator
13-12-2004, 03:25 PM
The current entries for the Lidums Australian Open.



No Name Feder Rtg Loc

1. KENGIS, Edvins LAT 2543
2. JOHANSEN, Darryl K VIC 2485
3. D'AMORE, Carlo ITA 2448
4. SEDINA, Elena ITA 2431
5. ALANDI, Ennio ITA 2429
6. BJELOBRK, Igor VIC 2392
7. HECHT, Hans- Joachim GER 2389
8. XIE, George NSW 2351
9. JORDAN, Bill VIC 2348
10. II TEODULFO, Nones PHI 2281
11. SAW, Geoffrey VIC 2278
12. TIDOY, Pedro PHI 2226
13. REJ, Tomek NSW 2225
14. DRAGICEVIC, Domagoj VIC 2122
15. PECORI, Ascaro VIC 2046
16. MORTENSEN, Henrik DEN 2030
17. JACKSON, Ralph E SA 2015
18. SONG, Raymond NSW 1995
19. STOJIC, Dusan VIC 1984
20. SONTER, Matthew QLD 1981
21. BONHAM, Kevin TAS 1980
22. DIZDAREVIC, Mehmedalija VIC 1971
23. CHAN, Jason NSW 1957
24. WONGWICHIT, Phachara QLD 1947
25. WALLIS, Christopher VIC 1944
26. PYKE, Malcolm L VIC 1941
27. VOON, Richard VIC 1908
28. LY, Moulthun QLD 1881
29. MENDES DA COSTA, Alex NSW 1877
30. HU, Jason NSW 1873
31. HOLT, Kenneth P VIC 1860
32. VAN DER WAL, Fritz W NSW 1841
33. ILLINGWORTH, Max NSW 1839
34. FROST, Peter VIC 1831
35. LIN, Zhigen Wilson VIC 1819
36. LILLY, Richard WA 1818
37. STOJIC, Svetozar VIC 1802
38. SILAS, Pranas AUS 1800
39. CHADWICK, Charles TAS 1797
40. TRUSCOTT, Tony J QLD 1783
41. SONG, Angela NSW 1771
42. TULEVSKI, Vasil G NSW 1771
43. VIJAYAKUMAR, Rukman VIC 1768
44. LEA, Tom VIC 1765
45. ALKIN, John QLD 1762
46. MURRAY, Russell VIC 1755
47. NEUDEL, Bernd OS 1750
48. STARK, Ken QLD 1666
49. GHOBRIAL, Adel VIC 1659
50. OLIVER, Shannon ACT 1644
51. DAVIDSON, Nathan P QLD 1637
52. BUCIU, Aurel-John QLD 1633
53. COOKE, Tristrom SA 1588
54. GUO-YUTHOK, Sherab ACT 1578
55. BECKMAN, John VIC 1576
56. BALDWIN, A(Tony) C NSW 1413
57. BAXTER, Craig VIC 1338
58. SCHON, Eugene VIC 1279
59. VIJAYAKUMAR, Rengan VIC 1239
60. GIBBON, Grahame NSW 1130
61. CRUZ, Prospero PHI
62. MERCADO, Levi PHI
63. TIDOY, Dennis PHI
64. VIJAYAKUMAR, Ariaratnan VIC

Oepty
16-12-2004, 05:37 PM
Have Meizes and Antic both withdrawn from the event?

How GMs will be playing at MT Buller?

Have Australia's top players, like Lane, Wallace, Solomon, Wohl, Tao, Smerdon, Zhao etc recieved an invite or any contact from the organising committee directly?

Garvinator
16-12-2004, 05:46 PM
Have Meizes and Antic both withdrawn from the event?

How GMs will be playing at MT Buller?

Have Australia's top players, like Lane, Wallace, Solomon, Wohl, Tao, Smerdon, Zhao etc recieved an invite or any contact from the organising committee directly?
I have been waiting for this question for a while actually.

Miezes and Antic informed us recently that they are unable to participate. Antic due to visa problems where he had to go home. Miezes said his flights were getting to expensive to come.

We have three GM's playing plus a WGM.

Regarding the Australian IM's, Wallace and Wohl are overseas.
Gary Lane gave George his minimum conditions and after long negotiations, we couldnt come to mutually acceptable conditions.

George also recieved advice from respected quarters that offering ten prizes of decent amount would help to attract the aussie IM's instead of the usual appearance fees. So the ten prizes were offered. None of the IM's entered under these conditions.

We were informed by Charles Z that Zhao is unavailable, so we approached Solomon and Smerdon with what we could offer them and explained the prize money etc. They both declined. Smerdon due to exams that he put off after going to the olympiad. Solomon due to his family and late notice.

Agreed that it doesnt look too good to have only one of the six olympiad players in the open, but we were given only a very short time to get the players. With a longer time period, we could have been more successful.

An aussie IM placing tenth would recieve $500.

George Howard was the principle person involved in the negotiations and so more detailed questions should be directed in his direction at georgeshoward@hotmail.com

If any IM's are interested in playing and would like to begin negotiations, please email myself at garvingray@mtbullerchess.com or send me a pm on here. If you wish to speak to George about playing georgeshoward@hotmail.com

Oepty
17-12-2004, 05:20 PM
What about Trevor Tao? Not a IM but just as strong as most of them. Also what about Sandler, Feldman, Ruejic, Chapman, Irina Berezina and of Australia's other IM's I might not have mentioned. It is a very poor turnout by Australia's top players. Why is what I am wondering. I wouldn't worry about only getting one of the 10 players who went to the Olympiad, I think the last open got exactly the same number. It is interesting that the zonal is attracting more of Australia top players, inlcuding Wohl. Wohl being overseas shouldn't have been a reason not to contact him but admittedly it might have made it harder.

Garvinator
17-12-2004, 05:40 PM
What about Trevor Tao? Not a IM but just as strong as most of them.

Trevor Tao would have to pay his way like most players as he is not an IM. If we offered Trevor special conditions, we would have to offer similiar conditions to other players of similiar ilk.


Also what about Sandler, Feldman, Ruejic, Chapman, Irina Berezina and of Australia's other IM's I might not have mentioned. It is a very poor turnout by Australia's top players. Why is what I am wondering. I wouldn't worry about only getting one of the 10 players who went to the Olympiad, I think the last open got exactly the same number. It is interesting that the zonal is attracting more of Australia top players, inlcuding Wohl. Wohl being overseas shouldn't have been a reason not to contact him but admittedly it might have made it harder.

I dont like the fact that we have only been able to secure one of the top ten players, but if what you say is correct about penrith as well, then perhaps the IM's are asking for too much when it comes to the aussie open (runs away, expecting massive backlash to this comment).

I think Andrew or Alex Saint would be able to add more than I can about the approaches to overseas players as they were more involved in that area than I was.

As I said in a previous post, we are offering free entry for IM's, perhaps free accommodation and very handy prizemoney ($500 if you place tenth). We have three GM's for this tournament and enough federations(i think) so norms are up for grabs. So to be honest I dont understand why so many of the IM's are giving this tournament a miss, like they did at penrith.

Oepty
17-12-2004, 05:50 PM
Wallace, Smerdon and Solomon all played in the last open, but they didn't go to the Olympiad. I think that with players having to pay almost all of their way to the Olympiad this time it would be very hard for them to afford the accomadation. Having said that, I don't know what conditions you are offering are.
I wasn't saying you should give Tao the conditions you would give to an IM, but to most spectators I would have thought it doesn't matter that he hasn't achived the title because he obviously is as strong as an IM.

I am not going to be crictical of the organising committee, hope I am not coming accross like that.

Garvinator
17-12-2004, 06:05 PM
Wallace, Smerdon and Solomon all played in the last open, but they didn't go to the Olympiad. I think that with players having to pay almost all of their way to the Olympiad this time it would be very hard for them to afford the accomadation. Having said that, I don't know what conditions you are offering are.
I wasn't saying you should give Tao the conditions you would give to an IM, but to most spectators I would have thought it doesn't matter that he hasn't achived the title because he obviously is as strong as an IM.
Smerdon is unavailable, i think i mentioned that already, uni exams. Solomon unfortunately declined our conditions due to late notice and also because of family concerns. Alex or Andrew would be able to help more about Wallace as he is overseas and they had more communication with overseas players than I did.

To most spectators it might not matter, but we dont want to create more arguments by offering one person a good deal and then offering someone else of similiar standard a different deal. The general standard for Australian Tournaments is free entry for GM's, IM's, WGM's and WIM's.

There is no free entry for FM's. We have tried to be as fair as possible to all titled players, while still being considerate for each player and the tournament as a whole. This did include the large prize pool and the opportunity for norms.

Oepty
17-12-2004, 06:08 PM
Norms would not be a consideration as far as Tao goes because he needs an IM norm from a round robin tournament not a swiss to get the IM title. I will repeat I am not saying Tao should get free entry or any other free conditions just whether the committee had tried to get him to play.

Garvinator
17-12-2004, 06:24 PM
Norms would not be a consideration as far as Tao goes because he needs an IM norm from a round robin tournament not a swiss to get the IM title. I will repeat I am not saying Tao should get free entry or any other free conditions just whether the committee had tried to get him to play.
Can someone else confirm this regarding norm conditions? George would be able to answer this better than I as George might have spoken to him in person in Adelaide.

jenni
17-12-2004, 06:35 PM
We have three GM's for this tournament and enough federations(i think) so norms are up for grabs.

From what I've been told the ratings are too low to allow a GM norm...

Garvinator
17-12-2004, 06:46 PM
From what I've been told the ratings are too low to allow a GM norm...
ok then :doh:

Bill Gletsos
17-12-2004, 06:48 PM
Wallace, Smerdon and Solomon all played in the last open,
So did Lane and Froehlich.

Oepty
19-12-2004, 02:38 PM
Bill. I was aware Lane had played, but I didn't list him because he went to the previous olympiad. I had totally forgotten the Froehlich even existed so thanks for the reminder about him

arosar
20-12-2004, 02:09 PM
Frank Gerdell may play in both rapid and blitz. He is presently in Melbourne. Perhaps Frank's most memorable game in an Australian Open was his win over Solo at the Sunshine Coast edition of this event in 1999.

[Event "Australian op"]
[Site "Suncoast"]
[Date "1999.01.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Solomon,Stephen J"]
[Black "Gerdell,Frank"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B31"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.0-0 Bg7 6.c3 d5 7.e5 Bg4 8.Re1 Qc7 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 e6 11.Nbd2 Ne7 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Nxf3 0-0 14.b3 c5 15.Ba3 cxd4 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Qxd4 Rfc8 18.Bc5 a5 19.g4 Bf8 20.Kg2 Qb5 21.Qe3 Nf5 22.gxf5 Bxc5 23.Qe2 Qxe2 24.Rxe2 Ba3 25.Rxc8+ Rxc8 26.f6 Bc1 27.Nd4 g5 28.Nb5 h5 29.h4 g4 30.Kg3 Rc5 31.a4 Bh6 32.f3 Rc1 33.fxg4 Rg1+ 34.Rg2 Bf4+ 35.Kxf4 Rxg2 36.gxh5 Rh2 37.Kg5 Re2 38.Nd4 Rxe5+ 39.Kh6 Re4 40.Nc6 d4 41.Ne7+ Kf8 42.Kg5 Re5+ 43.Kf4 Rxh5 44.Nc6 Rxh4+ 45.Kf3 Rh3+ 46.Ke2 Rxb3 47.Nxa5 Ra3 48.Nc6 Rxa4 49.Kd3 Ra1 50.Ke2 d3+ 51.Kxd3 Rf1 52.Ke4 Rxf6 53.Ke5 Rf1 54.Ke4 Rc1 55.Na5 Ke7 56.Nb3 Rc2 57.Kd3 Rh2 58.Nc5 f5 59.Kd4 Rd2+ 60.Ke3 Rd5 61.Na4 Kf6 62.Nc3 Ra5 63.Kf2 e5 64.Ke2 e4 65.Ke3 Ra3 66.Kf4 Ke6 67.Nb5 Rf3+ 68.Kg5 Ke5 69.Kh4 f4 70.Kg4 Rg3+ 71.Kh4 Rg8 72.Nc3 Kf5 73.Kh3 Rg3+ 0-1

AR

Oepty
20-12-2004, 03:07 PM
Trevor Tao needs an IM norm from a round robin tournament to gain the IM title. He has two IM norms from swiss tournaments, the second being the last Australian Championships in Adelaide. You cannot get all of your norms from swiss events.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 08:17 PM
Hello Mr Goat,

I see you are not entered in the aussie open yet, are you intending to enter?

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 09:32 PM
Hello Mr Goat,

I see you are not entered in the aussie open yet, are you intending to enter?

Now, now gg'',
That is not a tone likely to persuade a Mexican to enter.
Why not try first name basis?


starter

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 09:35 PM
Now, now gg'',
That is not a tone likely to persuade a Mexican to enter.
Why not try first name basis?


starter
sorry, just prefer not to use ppl's first names on here when I dont think I have permission to do so as of yet :doh:

Libby
21-12-2004, 06:24 PM
Hi all

This is from an info & activities booklet I am producing for the Juniors (on the "parents page" of the booklet). Thought it might be of interest - designated drivers permitting!

And no, I did not write every word myself - I have sourced this stuff from a variety of pamphlets, emails, phone calls etc :)

AVALON VINEYARD - Whitfield Road, King Valley. Set in the beautiful King Valley, just an hour drive from Mansfield, Avalon Wines is open 7 days a week from 10am until 5pm. (03) 5729 3629

CHRISMONT WINES - Upper King Valley Road, Cheshunt. Chrismont prides itself on always changing and improving to provide the wine enthisiast with a premium wine experience. The Chrismont Cellar Door is set atop the 250 acre vineyard and the views are breathtaking. Open 7 days. (03) 5729 8220

DELATITE WINERY - Stoney’s Road, Mansfield. 10 minutes drive from Mansfield, this well-established family winery offers medal winning wines. Picnic or BBQ on the lawns with magnificent views of the mountains. Opening hours 10am until 5pm. (03) 5775 2922

GROWLERS GULLY WINES - 21A Shaws Road, Merton. Light meals, BBQ and local produce available. Open 4pm-6pm on Fridays, 10am -6pm weekends and other times by appointment (03) 5778 9615

JAMIESON BREWERY HOTEL/MOTEL - Jamieson Eildon Road, Jamieson. Drive 30 mins from Mansfield and you can taste a variety of beers brewed on the premises. Groups and families welcome. Hours 9am - late. (03) 5777 0515

KING RIVER ESTATE - Whitfield Road, Edi. Located in the heart of the King Valley at Edi, between Moyhu and Whitfield, King River Estate has established a reputation for producing high quality wines. Weekends only. (03) 5729 3689

KINLOCH WINES - “Kainui” Wairere Road, Booroolite. 15 mins drive from Mansfield, this small family winery was established in 1996. Light meals and refreshments are available. Open 10am-4pm weekends with extended hours in January. (03) 5777 3447

PEPPIN RIDGE WINERY - Peppin Drive, Peppin Point (Bonnie Doon). 25 mins from Mansfield, this family winery opened its Cellar Door at Easter 2002. Open 7 days, 11am-5pm or by appointment. (03) 5778 7430

PIZZINI WINES - King Valley Road, Whitfield. Less than an hour drive from mansfield, Pizzini Wines are open for cellar door tastings and sales 7 days a week. 10am-5pm. (03) 5729 8278

Also try fine local crafts and produce at “Alice Langton’s Sauces” or “Made in Mansfield” (both on High Street), Mansfield Terracotta Shed & Giftware (50 Withers Lane, Mansfield). Made in Mansfield is closed on Tuesdays and the Terracotta Shed is closed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

arosar
21-12-2004, 06:40 PM
Wineries? Careful. You could be accused of being bourgeoisie.

Or worse: a tosser!

AR

Libby
21-12-2004, 07:04 PM
Wineries? Careful. You could be accused of being bourgeoisie.

Or worse: a tosser!

AR

Ok - just stick to the brewery then or perhaps that's as bad (or worse) being boutique beer?

And if I'm a tosser, I'm in very good company on the BB ... :P

Bill Gletsos
21-12-2004, 07:11 PM
Trevor Tao needs an IM norm from a round robin tournament to gain the IM title. He has two IM norms from swiss tournaments, the second being the last Australian Championships in Adelaide. You cannot get all of your norms from swiss events.
Are you sure.
Can you please quote the relevant FIDE Article.

Garvinator
22-12-2004, 11:29 AM
Australian International Master David Smerdon has just confirmed his entry for the Lidums Australian Open.

Reminder to everyone that entries close today for the aussie open.

Oepty
22-12-2004, 03:35 PM
Are you sure.
Can you please quote the relevant FIDE Article.

I can't find it with a quick look at the FIDE handbook of the FIDE website, but I am absolutely sure this is correct. I have read the reports that FIDE put on their website where titles applications have been rejected because the norms came from all swiss tournaments.

Ian Rout
22-12-2004, 03:49 PM
I can't find it with a quick look at the FIDE handbook of the FIDE website, but I am absolutely sure this is correct. I have read the reports that FIDE put on their website where titles applications have been rejected because the norms came from all swiss tournaments.
I could be completely wrong here, but did the rule used to be that norms had to be over more games if there were no round robins? (and there was a question mark over whether a teams tournament was a round robin if you sat out some rounds)?

Oepty
22-12-2004, 03:54 PM
I have found the rule for arbiters, but not for players so maybe I got that mixed although I have had my understand for ages and exposed it a bit without any contradiction.

Denis_Jessop
22-12-2004, 09:35 PM
I have found the rule for arbiters, but not for players so maybe I got that mixed although I have had my understand for ages and exposed it a bit without any contradiction.


The FIDE Handbook setting out the requirements for titiles does not seem to say anything about the need for some games to be played in a round-robin. There is no mention of round-robins and Swisses. But games in individual matches are not allowed. The relevant part is as folllows:

1.6 Summary of Title Tournaments Requirements
Notes
Number of games per day not more than two
Total thinking time minimum 120 minutes 1.14
Period for the whole event within 90 days 1.15
Administrators in charge International Arbiter 1.16
Number of games minimum 9 1.41b-c
Type of event no individual single matches
Games not included ...
against computers;
adjudicated;
forfeited before play starts;
against players who do not belong to a FIDE Federation;
against players from Federations temporarily excluded. 1.42
Number of GMs, for GM minimum 3 GMs 1.45b
Number of IMs, for IM minimum 3, or 2 GMs 1.45c
Number of title-holders for WGM minimum 3 of GM/IM/WGM/FM 1.45d
Number of WIMs for WIM minimum 3, or 2 GM/IM/WGM/FM 1.45e
Minimum perfomance rating GM 2601, IM 2451,
WGM 2401, WIM 2251 1.48

Denis Jessop

Garvinator
22-12-2004, 10:22 PM
Hello everyone,

Here is the close to final list of entrants for the Lidums Australian Open.


No Name Feder Loc

1. KENGIS, Edvins LAT 2543
2. JOHANSEN, Darryl K VIC 2485
3. D'AMORE, Carlo ITA 2448
4. SEDINA, Elena ITA 2431
5. SMERDON, David C VIC 2431
6. ALANDI, Ennio ITA 2429
7. BJELOBRK, Igor VIC 2392
8. HECHT, Hans- Joachim GER 2389
9. XIE, George NSW 2351
10. JORDAN, Bill VIC 2348
11. SAW, Geoffrey VIC 2278
12. TIDOY, Pedro PHI 2226
13. REJ, Tomek NSW 2225
14. DRAGICEVIC, Domagoj VIC 2122
15. HUMPHREY, Jonathan QLD 2060
16. PECORI, Ascaro VIC 2046
17. WEI, Michael ACT 2043
18. MORTENSEN, Henrik DEN 2030
19. JACKSON, Ralph E SA 2015
20. SONG, Raymond NSW 1995
21. STOJIC, Dusan VIC 1984
22. SONTER, Matthew QLD 1981
23. BONHAM, Kevin TAS 1980
24. DIZDAREVIC, Mehmedalija VIC 1971
25. CHAN, Jason NSW 1957
26. WONGWICHIT, Phachara QLD 1947
27. WALLIS, Christopher VIC 1944
28. OBST, James SA 1942
29. PYKE, Malcolm L VIC 1941
30. VOON, Richard VIC 1908
31. LY, Moulthun QLD 1881
32. MENDES DA COSTA, Alex NSW 1877
33. HU, Jason NSW 1873
34. HOLT, Kenneth P VIC 1860
35. LUGO, Ruperto VIC 1845
36. VAN DER WAL, Fritz W NSW 1841
37. ILLINGWORTH, Max NSW 1839
38. FROST, Peter VIC 1831
39. HARDEGEN, Andrew WA 1820
40. LIN, Zhigen Wilson VIC 1819
41. LILLY, Richard WA 1818
42. STOJIC, Svetozar VIC 1802
43. SILAS, Pranas AUS 1800
44. CHADWICK, Charles TAS 1797
45. TRUSCOTT, Tony J QLD 1783
46. SONG, Angela NSW 1771
47. TULEVSKI, Vasil G NSW 1771
48. VIJAYAKUMAR, Rukman VIC 1768
49. LEA, Tom VIC 1765
50. ALKIN, John QLD 1762
51. MURRAY, Russell VIC 1755
52. NEUDEL, Bernd OS 1750
53. KARA, Barbaros VIC 1748
54. ALI, Mosaddeque ACT 1734
55. ZILESKI, George VIC 1702
56. VAN DIJK, Devrim VIC 1680
57. STARK, Ken QLD 1666
58. GHOBRIAL, Adel VIC 1659
59. OLIVER, Shannon ACT 1644
60. DAVIDSON, Nathan P QLD 1637
61. BUCIU, Aurel-John QLD 1633
62. ESCRIBANO, Jose NSW 1611
63. COOKE, Tristrom SA 1588
64. GUO-YUTHOK, Sherab ACT 1578
65. BECKMAN, John VIC 1576
66. ARKINS, Damien NSW 1435
67. YU, Derek VIC 1388
68. LAUGERY, Bernard A NSW 1377
69. BAXTER, Craig VIC 1338
70. NOUR, James VIC 1336
71. SCHON, Eugene VIC 1279
72. VIJAYAKUMAR, Rengan VIC 1239
73. WANG, Shuyu VIC 955
74. YU, Sally VIC 857
75. TIDOY, Dennis PHI

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2004, 01:35 AM
62. ESCRIBANO, Jose NSW 1611

I want the truth here Garvin - was appearance money paid? :hmm:

(Dammit. I'm only two seedings off a round 1 rematch with the great man. Our previous game was a draw and one of the worst in the history of modern chess.)

JGB
23-12-2004, 01:50 AM
I want the truth here Garvin - was appearance money paid? :hmm:

(Dammit. I'm only two seedings off a round 1 rematch with the great man. Our previous game was a draw and one of the worst in the history of modern chess.)

..and your not going to post it in the games (learning) section? :P

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 09:10 AM
I want the truth here Garvin - was appearance money paid? :hmm:
Yes there was appearance money paid. We shelled out of our own pocket for the penthouse suite at mercure, free entry, full breakfast and three course meals all day. The whole bit, no expense spared. Now I know why our tournament isnt running at a huge profit :owned: :owned: :whistle: ;)

jenni
23-12-2004, 09:35 AM
Yes there was appearance money paid. We shelled out of our own pocket for the penthouse suite at mercure, free entry, full breakfast and three course meals all day. The whole bit, no expense spared. Now I know why our tournament isnt running at a huge profit :owned: :owned: :whistle: ;)

But do you have enough cups for the coffee?

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 09:38 AM
But do you have enough cups for the coffee?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oepty
23-12-2004, 01:55 PM
We seem to have lost a number of the players from the Phillipines.

arosar
23-12-2004, 03:22 PM
We seem to have lost a number of the players from the Phillipines.

Who?

AR

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 04:26 PM
We seem to have lost a number of the players from the Phillipines.
yes we have, a couple had visa probs, another just didnt want to come or something like that, so we down to what we have listed in the entries.

alexmdc
24-12-2004, 09:18 AM
I'm travelling down with Ilia Zvedeniouk and I notice he isnt on the list of entries!

He's definately playing, any ideas?

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 09:31 AM
I'm travelling down with Ilia Zvedeniouk and I notice he isnt on the list of entries!

He's definately playing, any ideas?
Alex, you need to contact George immediately on 0414 841 575. He is the only one that can help you at this stage.

I just checked my records for all the paid entries for the open. Ilia Zvedeniouk does not appear. You really need to contact George immediately on the phone number I gave above. Hope all goes well and Ilia is able to play.

Cheers,

Garvin Gray
Mt Buller Chess Tournaments Organiser.

arosar
24-12-2004, 09:40 AM
gray . . . gray . . . gray. Have we not learned my friend? The poor guy's desperate and worried. Prolly put in quite an effort gettin' ready for the long, long trek. He's the customer mate.

Call George yourself and find out mate.

AR

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 10:03 AM
gray . . . gray . . . gray. Have we not learned my friend? The poor guy's desperate and worried. Prolly put in quite an effort gettin' ready for the long, long trek. He's the customer mate.

Call George yourself and find out mate.

AR
I dont need to call George, I know the entry hasnt been recieved. I requested that Alex call George as George is the only one that can help at this late stage.

Btw, I dont care what you think, so stop replying to my posts :hand:, I thought you already knew this.

arosar
24-12-2004, 10:26 AM
Btw, I dont care what you think, so stop replying to my posts :hand:, I thought you already knew this.

That's quite an evasive move on your part gray. The small fonts I mean. You think perhaps this makes your posts less easier targets?

On account of the festive season gray, we'll leave you alone. Merry Xmas! Can you reciprocate the sentiment? A bit of practice in diplomacy when the moms & dads rock up.

AR

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 10:33 AM
That's quite an evasive move on your part gray. The small fonts I mean. You think perhaps this makes your posts less easier targets?

On account of the festive season gray, we'll leave you alone. Merry Xmas! Can you reciprocate the sentiment? A bit of practice in diplomacy when the moms & dads rock up.

AR
i have no wish to give you anything, diplomacy or otherwise. You have been a critic from day one and have never stopped. You went quiet for a while, but never said you supported anything PUBLICLY. I reply to your posts cause generally they are garbage and I believe garbage shouldnt go unchallenged. I cant wait for all this to be over.

arosar
24-12-2004, 10:41 AM
You hurt my feelings gray. But, as I am catholic and christmassy, I forgive you.


I cant wait for all this to be over.

Oh it's not that bad. Listen, we want you back in 2005 ya hear? So try not to set off a crisis while you're there. Be nice to the moms & dads.

Merry Xmas and have a happy new year.

AR

alexmdc
24-12-2004, 10:42 AM
Ok its no problem

Ilia gave his entry to Charles Z, (who I just spoke to) who hasn't actually told anyone that he entered. But since CharleZ is the chief arbiter, he's sure that he will be playing.

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 10:59 AM
Ok its no problem

Ilia gave his entry to Charles Z, (who I just spoke to) who hasn't actually told anyone that he entered. But since CharleZ is the chief arbiter, he's sure that he will be playing.
ok then, prob solved. I have to ring Charles soon anyways, so Ill confirm this and add Ilia :)

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 04:23 PM
ok then, prob solved. I have to ring Charles soon anyways, so Ill confirm this and add Ilia :)
Hello Alex,
I have spoken to Charles and Charles has recieved Ilia's payment for the open. So he is in:)

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2004, 07:09 PM
..and your not going to post it in the games (learning) section? :P

It was only a rapid. If I scored it I don't still have the scoresheet. Certainly no learning to be done there either. Laughing maybe. I think I was a piece up and then a rook down and then swindled a perpetual. Truly ghastly.

eclectic
24-12-2004, 07:32 PM
Hello Alex,
I have spoken to Charles and Charles has recieved Ilia's payment for the open. So he is in:)

So I assume we will all soon be viewing the final final final entry list?

:)

m

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 07:35 PM
So I assume we will all soon be viewing the final final final entry list?

:)

m
yes you will, soon ;)

skip to my lou
24-12-2004, 10:39 PM
yes you will, soon ;)

http://www.mtbullerchess.com/open/players.php

Garvinator
24-12-2004, 11:02 PM
http://www.mtbullerchess.com/open/players.php
i can open this link, but when i got to the main site, i cant find the direction links for it. Are you still updating that part?

skip to my lou
24-12-2004, 11:56 PM
i can open this link, but when i got to the main site, i cant find the direction links for it. Are you still updating that part?

It's on the info page and player profiles. If you want me to add an announcement, send me the text and I'll add it.

Bill Gletsos
28-12-2004, 03:36 PM
yes we have, a couple had visa probs, another just didnt want to come or something like that, so we down to what we have listed in the entries.
Since then it appears both the Tidoy's have withdrawn.

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 04:28 PM
Round 1 pairings have been displayed and this allows us to look at how competitive the round is for the players.
Our usual index for measuring the 'competitiveness of a set of pairings' is the Average of Absolute Differences between the paired players. With 37 pairings this gives a good set of data to examine without distortions that can appear in a small field.

There has been much debate on the BB as to an appropriate thresh-hold to declare a round as a 'junk round'. No consensus has been reached; although 450 was suggested in some quarters as the height of the bar.

For the 1st round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 475.7


starter

arosar
28-12-2004, 05:10 PM
Hey listen, we don't want to see your stupid competitive index numbers in here alright?

AR

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 07:53 PM
Hey listen, we don't want to see your stupid competitive index numbers in here alright?

AR
Hi Amiel
How are you mate?
Enjoying the festive season?
Winning a lot of 'I told you so' competitions with Barry?

Anyhow, good to see you read my post on the competitive index.

Now here is a deal for you Amiel > if you can find a single useful post on page 8 of this thread (excluding yours at the top...don't want any COI), then I will.............................................. ........think about what you posted.

Until you can find and prove just 1 useful post, then guess what...



starter

Spiny Norman
28-12-2004, 08:09 PM
For the 1st round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 475.7

One of the things I noticed when perusing the list of players at Mt Buller is the "gap" between roughly 2100 and 2350. Based on the list at:

http://www.mtbullerchess.com/open/players.php

I counted the following:

1700-1799 12 entries
1800-1899 13 entries
1900-1999 12 entries
2000-2099 6 entries
2100-2199 1 entry
2200-2299 1 entry
2300-2399 4 entries
2400+ 6 entries

At the risk of displaying my ignorance of such things, is this considered a "normal" distribution of ratings/entries for such an event?

It caught my eye as I was expecting to see a gradual tapering off as the ratings climbed, not a "hole" in the middle of the graph.

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 08:16 PM
One of the things I noticed when perusing the list of players at Mt Buller is the "gap" between roughly 2100 and 2350. Based on the list at:

http://www.mtbullerchess.com/open/players.php

I counted the following:

1700-1799 12 entries
1800-1899 13 entries
1900-1999 12 entries
2000-2099 6 entries
2100-2199 1 entry
2200-2299 1 entry
2300-2399 4 entries
2400+ 6 entries

At the risk of displaying my ignorance of such things, is this considered a "normal" distribution of ratings/entries for such an event?

It caught my eye as I was expecting to see a gradual tapering off as the ratings climbed, not a "hole" in the middle of the graph.

Steve

I will look forward to other posters commenting on your observation; I don't have much experience in this area.

In the recent 2004 Victorian Weekender we had 100+ entrants and the same effect could be noticed. So much so, that we introduced a new prize, after the start of the event, to cater for those just below the "hole" as you call it. (In our case just below 2000).


starter

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 07:10 AM
Round 1 pairings have been displayed and this allows us to look at how competitive the round is for the players.
Our usual index for measuring the 'competitiveness of a set of pairings' is the Average of Absolute Differences between the paired players. With 37 pairings this gives a good set of data to examine without distortions that can appear in a small field.

There has been much debate on the BB as to an appropriate thresh-hold to declare a round as a 'junk round'. No consensus has been reached; although 450 was suggested in some quarters as the height of the bar.

For the 1st round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 475.7



starter

Round 1 results of significance.

All games finished as per the ratings differential on the top 9 boards.

Commendable draws on boards 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 34.

Definite upsets on boards 30 and 36.

For the 2nd round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 352.1


starter

WhiteElephant
29-12-2004, 07:22 AM
I reckon chess is about psychology, intellectual struggle, clash of styles - attack Vs defence, etc. Numbers don't mean much. :) Sorry starter.

If I was interested in statistics I would take up CRICKET.

W.E.

Spiny Norman
29-12-2004, 07:33 AM
I reckon chess is about psychology, intellectual struggle, clash of styles - attack Vs defence, etc. Numbers don't mean much. :) Sorry starter.

... and the relative strengths of the opponents of course ... i don't think there's any numbers to measure aggressiveness of the players, or their mental state, but we DO try to use them to measure strength.

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 07:35 AM
I reckon chess is about psychology, intellectual struggle, clash of styles - attack Vs defence, etc. Numbers don't mean much. :) Sorry starter.

If I was interested in statistics I would take up CRICKET.

W.E.

George
Most of us would agree with your "I reckon chess is about psychology, intellectual struggle, clash of styles - attack Vs defence,"

But the statistics are not about chess playing, but, instead, arise from asking the question "Why do players gravitate to some events and not others".
Of course factors such as
venue
prizes on offer
strong players entered
titles on offer
etc

play a significant part.

Perhaps also the competitiveness of the games on offer plays a part. You may wish to read further on the THREAD devoted to this fascinating topic. ;)


starter

WhiteElephant
29-12-2004, 07:38 AM
... and the relative strengths of the opponents of course ... i don't think there's any numbers to measure aggressiveness of the players, or their mental state, but we DO try to use them to measure strength.

That's true. You definitely get a great feeling from beating someone rated much higher than you. Rather than just saying 'I beat the guy whose mother-in-law's cousin beat the brother of a guy who beat Darryl Johansen.'

Can you tell I am on holidays and have WAY too much time on my hands?

WhiteElephant
29-12-2004, 07:52 AM
George
Most of us would agree with your "I reckon chess is about psychology, intellectual struggle, clash of styles - attack Vs defence,"

But the statistics are not about chess playing, but, instead, arise from asking the question "Why do players gravitate to some events and not others".
Of course factors such as
venue
prizes on offer
strong players entered
titles on offer
etc

play a significant part.

Perhaps also the competitiveness of the games on offer plays a part. You may wish to read further on the THREAD devoted to this fascinating topic. ;)


starter

Ahh, when you talk marketing I am very interested. I just have a short attention span when it comes to the mathematics side of it :)

Ok, so how would working out the Competitive Index affect your business decisions when organising a toiurnament? Can you attract players of a specific rating range by varying the venue, prizemoney, etc? Has any research been done on this?

As an example, Frosty has noticed the 'hole' in the Aus Open entries. If you were the organiser and you had noticed this prior to the start of the event, is there anything that could have been done to address this particular problem?

I guess what I am trying to do is find the extent to which the Competitive Index has practical applications rather than just being something that is fun to speculate about.

W.E.

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 07:59 AM
Ahh, when you talk marketing I am very interested. I just have a short attention span when it comes to the mathematics side of it :)

Ok, so how would working out the Competitive Index affect your business decisions when organising a toiurnament? Can you attract players of a specific rating range by varying the venue, prizemoney, etc? Has any research been done on this?

As an example, Frosty has noticed the 'hole' in the Aus Open entries. If you were the organiser and you had noticed this prior to the start of the event, is there anything that could have been done to address this particular problem?

I guess what I am trying to do is find the extent to which the Competitive Index has practical applications rather than just being something that is fun to speculate about.

W.E.

George

I have PM'd you with the thread address that explores some of your questions. Use some of your free holiday time to read there, and then we can explore on that thread (otherwise that bloke who is off to NZ is going to get cranky about me generating traffic on a Mt B. thread, here).

regards
starter

Spiny Norman
29-12-2004, 06:22 PM
That's true. You definitely get a great feeling from beating someone rated much higher than you.

Or even just escaping with a draw! One of the highlights of my brief chess career (measured in games, not in years) was a draw against someone rated 500 pts higher.

ursogr8
30-12-2004, 07:00 AM
Round 1 results of significance.

All games finished as per the ratings differential on the top 9 boards.

Commendable draws on boards 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 34.

Definite upsets on boards 30 and 36.

For the 2nd round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 352.1


starter

Round 2 results of significance.


Commendable draws on boards 3,5,9,12,14,19,25. This metric was 6 in round 1 and is 7 in round 2

Lower-rated player won on boards 11,13,24,28,30,33,36. Not all of these could be declared 'upsets' on reasonable criteria. However, there are three that meet most definitions of an upset;

Eugene Schon d Russell Murray
Jason Hu d Domagoj Dragicevic
Derek Yu d Vasil Tulevski

Contrast these draws and upsets with round 1 results

For the 3rd round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 325.5


starter

Oepty
30-12-2004, 07:21 AM
I don't think that Hu beating Dragicevic is a huge surprise, I expected him to win.

ursogr8
30-12-2004, 08:05 AM
I don't think that Hu beating Dragicevic is a huge surprise, I expected him to win.

hi Freddy

For round 3 what are your tips for games/boards where the lower rated player in fact wins outright?

regards
starter

Oepty
30-12-2004, 05:59 PM
Okay I will make a couple of predictions.
1. Jason Hu will be the next Australian Junior Champion.
2. Obst to beat Guthrie, although that would not be a huge upset seeing Guthrie has not been playing much of lately
There are really not that many clear upset chances the third round. Alkin - Jackson is perhaps an upset choice as well. Most of my upset favourites got good results yesterday.

jenni
30-12-2004, 06:13 PM
Okay I will make a couple of predictions.
1. Jason Hu will be the next Australian Junior Champion.
.

You are a very brave man. Charles and I were discussing this on the way back from Mt Buller a couple of weeks ago and we came up with a list of 15 that we thought had realistic chances of winning. It is probably the most wide open Aus Juniors in years. Although one of the favourites (Sam and Ronald), might blitz the opposition, I think that scenario is unlikely....

Duff McKagan
30-12-2004, 07:15 PM
You are a very brave man. Charles and I were discussing this on the way back from Mt Buller a couple of weeks ago and we came up with a list of 15 that we thought had realistic chances of winning. It is probably the most wide open Aus Juniors in years. Although one of the favourites (Sam and Ronald), might blitz the opposition, I think that scenario is unlikely....

Wanna make a wager Freddy? :) A victorian will win for sure.

Oepty
30-12-2004, 08:37 PM
I think that it is one of the most open juniors, because of its excellent strength. I don't see how making the prediction is brave, I would have thought more like stupid. I would probably have a shorter list than 15 who could win although I suspect at least that many believe they can win. I would just disagree with most of them.
Scott

jenni
30-12-2004, 09:15 PM
Anyone who picks a winner in a junior tournament is brave ...

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 07:23 AM
Round 3 results of significance.


Commendable draws on boards 14, 25,30

Lower-rated player won on boards 2, 13, 35; a huge reduction from the metric of yesterday. All of these could be declared 'upsets' on reasonable criteria.

Jose Escribano d Malcolm Pike
Jason Hu d David Smerdon
Nathan Davidson d Svetozar Stojic.
The same number as yesterday.

Freddy didn't pick the Jason Hu upset. And the two upsets he did pick did not eventuate.

For the 34th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 269.4.
First 4 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, and 269.4 is headed to the low end of what we have seen last year in comparable events.


starter

ps
If you are at Mt B. and want advice of where to watch today you could be well advised to keep an eye on
9 Wallis, Christopher 1944 2.0 0-0 Pecori, Ascaro 2046 2.0
15 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2122 1.5 0-0 Lin, Zhigen W 1819 2.0
18 Bonham, Kevin 1980 1.5 0-0 Frost, Peter 1831 1.5

Oepty
31-12-2004, 08:25 AM
starter. I only made only pick, my comment about the Alkin - Jackson was just an observation not a pick. I wouldn't be surprised if Guthrie puts in a really good game against Hecht today. As for me not picking Hu to beat Smerdon, well you didn't either.
It certainly would be no big upset if Wallis beat Pecori. I also think Ali is a good shot at getting something out of his game against Illingworth. My picks for upsets today are
1. Cooke to beat Ghobrial
2. Lin to beat Dragecevic
Scott

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 08:42 AM
starter. I only made only pick, my comment about the Alkin - Jackson was just an observation not a pick. I wouldn't be surprised if Guthrie puts in a really good game against Hecht today. As for me not picking Hu to beat Smerdon, well you didn't either.
It certainly would be no big upset if Wallis beat Pecori. I also think Ali is a good shot at getting something out of his game against Illingworth. My picks for upsets today are
1. Cooke to beat Ghobrial
2. Lin to beat Dragecevic
Scott

hi Freddy
Your words were "Alkin - Jackson is perhaps an upset choice as well."
If this wasn't a pick then join the rest of us who sit on the fence.

Agreed that Wallis v Pecori would not raise eye-brows because
> I think from memory Wallis won twice earlier this year
>> Bill's formula has still got the kid under-rated

Ali v Illingworth is a good form observation, but not a pick.

Listen Freddy, the Punters Club here in Melbourne want to know if you have got readdys to back up your picks each day?


starter

ps And the Punters Club are interested whether you want to put serious money on Jason Hu for the Junior title.
After you have sent your money in a brown envelope, just type Hu, Jason.......Chow, Sam....Wallis, Chris into here. (http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings_multi)

arosar
31-12-2004, 09:24 AM
Oh my God! Escribano downed Pyke. And how about S. Stojic? Isn't he having a shocker? Tulevski isn't going very well either.

AR

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 11:11 AM
Oh my God! Escribano downed Pyke. And how about S. Stojic? Isn't he having a shocker? Tulevski isn't going very well either.

AR

Good idea Amiel
I think will keep track of a new list..bigget upset margins; the story so far >

600 Rengan Vijayakumar d Max Illingworth (round 1)
558 Jason Hu d David Smerdon (round 3)
476 Eugene Schon d Russell Murray (round 2)
473 Damien Arkins d Richard Voon (round 1)
383 Derek Yu d Vasil Tulevski (round 2)

starter

Oepty
31-12-2004, 04:19 PM
hi Freddy
Your words were "Alkin - Jackson is perhaps an upset choice as well."
If this wasn't a pick then join the rest of us who sit on the fence.

Agreed that Wallis v Pecori would not raise eye-brows because
> I think from memory Wallis won twice earlier this year
>> Bill's formula has still got the kid under-rated

Ali v Illingworth is a good form observation, but not a pick.

Listen Freddy, the Punters Club here in Melbourne want to know if you have got readdys to back up your picks each day?


starter

ps And the Punters Club are interested whether you want to put serious money on Jason Hu for the Junior title.
After you have sent your money in a brown envelope, just type Hu, Jason.......Chow, Sam....Wallis, Chris into here. (http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings_multi)
The key word is perhaps in my words. This means I was not going as far as picking it as a result, but saying I wouldn't be surprised if it happen. If you look at my posts I have numbered my picks, but put other comments beside. My pick of Ali is not just based on his results in the tournament, I have thought he would perform better than his rating from before the start of the tournament. Of course you can chose not to believe my words and call me a liar.
Also further on my non picking of Hu to beat Smerdon look at the time I picked my choices for that round and then consider what the situation of the live coverage of the first 8 boards was at. I knew Hu was beating Smerdon when I made my picks so I would have been cheating if I had picked him to win.
I don't gamble because of my religious beliefs.
Scott
P.S. You might as well call me Scott seeing it is my real name

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 08:25 PM
Of course you can chose not to believe my words and call me a liar.

Oi. Freddy/Scott,
Slow down.
Go back and read my words.
They meant...ok ...it wasn't a pick. So, on that game, you are like the rest of us....not picking.


Also further on my non picking of Hu to beat Smerdon look at the time I picked my choices for that round and then consider what the situation of the live coverage of the first 8 boards was at. I knew Hu was beating Smerdon when I made my picks so I would have been cheating if I had picked him to win.

Well done Scott. Not many BBers have your integrity.

I don't gamble because of my religious beliefs.


Pity. We were hoping for some action. :uhoh: Commendable on your part btw.

Scott
P.S. You might as well call me Scott seeing it is my real name

Thanks Scott. I will try to remember to do that.

regards
starter

Leonid Sandler
31-12-2004, 08:27 PM
Happy New Year to everybody.It looks like that Kengis will win with Bjelobrk and Johansen,may be Sedina will fight for placing from two to four.The winner will score 8,5 points.

Rhubarb
01-01-2005, 03:02 AM
dear god, happy new year!

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 05:14 PM
Any chance of posting the cross-table out of SP? I prefer that to the standings.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 05:27 PM
Any chance of posting the cross-table out of SP? I prefer that to the standings.

starter
You cannot generate it from the SPDE files.
Garvin of course could always supply the crosstable as well.

Garvinator
01-01-2005, 06:09 PM
You cannot generate it from the SPDE files.
Garvin of course could always supply the crosstable as well.
i actually send the complete sp files to karths. That contains all relevant information.

skip to my lou
01-01-2005, 06:16 PM
You cannot generate it from the SPDE files.
Garvin of course could always supply the crosstable as well.

It can be generated (since you know who played who, what round, what board and what the result was.); but I guess it's a lot of work, If the organisers request it then I'll do it.

Garvinator
01-01-2005, 06:25 PM
It can be generated (since you know who played who, what round, what board and what the result was.); but I guess it's a lot of work, If the organisers request it then I'll do it.
the cross table would be helpful for ppl to read, but if you dont want to do it karths, that is ok too. Up to you on this one :)

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 06:30 PM
It can be generated (since you know who played who, what round, what board and what the result was.); but I guess it's a lot of work, If the organisers request it then I'll do it.
What I meant was the cross table is not an automatically included file amongst the SPDE files.
Of course if you have SP you can generate the crosstable as a HTML document.

Garvinator
01-01-2005, 06:57 PM
What I meant was the cross table is not an automatically included file amongst the SPDE files.
Of course if you have SP you can generate the crosstable as a HTML document.
stml has sp ;)

skip to my lou
01-01-2005, 07:01 PM
I'll code it into Sesha to generate a crosstable from SPDE, so it's easier in the future also.

skip to my lou
01-01-2005, 07:15 PM
Report #1 posted.

skip to my lou
01-01-2005, 07:38 PM
Results + Pairings are up.

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 07:48 PM
How is competitiveness going to the end of round 4?

Not one of the first 6 seeds has met.

The fourth round for the top 6 seeds was actually easier than the third round.

Mos Ali and Jason Hu have meet fields that have an aggregate seed total near that of Kengis and Johansen.

Highest opponent for the 12th seed , Dragicevic, has been 34. Call this the C-quartile gambit?

Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 67th seed to round 3 4th seed.

Has the yoyo finished after 4 rounds? >

No players seeded 1-5th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 11-15th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 26-30th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 56-60th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 4 rounds
No players seeded 71-74th have met each other in 4 rounds

In round 4 the biggest pairing difference was 41 for the game
Escribano v Sonter

regards
starter

ps All the comments above are reflective of the behaviour of SWISS pairing rules, and not in any way a comment on Mt B. admin.

Libby
01-01-2005, 08:20 PM
Thanks Karthick for the scores and story on the webpage. I think that's a bit more interesting for people to visit. :)

Any chance someone will have some photos at some stage?

skip to my lou
01-01-2005, 08:23 PM
Thanks Karthick for the scores and story on the webpage. I think that's a bit more interesting for people to visit. :)

Any chance someone will have some photos at some stage?

I've requested Garvin to do this, he also wants the photos up, but he says the other organisers are not interested / do not think it is a priority right now.

Leonid Sandler
01-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Latvian 2004 champion Edvins Kengis won Australian Rapid open title.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 09:40 PM
I've requested Garvin to do this, he also wants the photos up, but he says the other organisers are not interested / do not think it is a priority right now.
I would suggest they are making an error in judgment.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 09:41 PM
Latvian 2004 champion Edvins Kengis won Australian Rapid open title.
Thanks for the information Leonid.

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 10:35 PM
Round 5 competitive index.

For the 5th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 242.2.
First 5 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2.


Freddy had two picks, for upsets, in round 4. One pick was incorrect and the second game was drawn.


starter

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 10:38 PM
After 5 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness


Highest rated opponent, in 5 rounds, for the 12th seed , Dragicevic, has been 31. Call this the extended C-quartile gambit?

Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 67th seed to round 3 4th seed. In the 4-5 round frame it is Frank Silas 19th to 73rd seed.

Has the yoyo finished after 5 rounds?

No players seeded 11-15th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 26-30th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 56-60th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 5 rounds
No players seeded 71-74th have met each other in 5 rounds

And just another oddity ‘No players seeded 41-45th have met any seed at all between 26 and 54’ so far, in 5 rounds of chess. A range of 28 seeds have been avoided by the 41-45 seeds…the ultimate yo-yo; even though the 41-45 seeds are essentially in the middle of this range.

In round 5 the biggest pairing difference on seed numbers is 43 for the game
Silas v S Yu


starter

Oepty
02-01-2005, 03:12 PM
Freddy had two picks, for upsets, in round 4. One pick was incorrect and the second game was drawn.


starter

Yes, I haven't got one pick right and I am not going to make a pick for the 5th round as I can see no obvious upsets. I think Guo-Yuthok and Cooke are 2 to watch on the lower boards. More likely Cooke will draw not win though

Scott

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 10:09 AM
After 6 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness


Highest rated opponent, in 6 rounds, for the 12th seed , Dragicevic, has been 31.
Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 >67th seed to round 3 >4th seed.
In the 5-6 round frame it is Ruperto Lugo >52nd to >6th seed.


Has the yoyo finished after 6 rounds?

No players seeded 11-15th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 26-30th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 56-60th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 6 rounds
No players seeded 71-74th have met each other in 6 rounds

And just another oddity
‘No players seeded 41-45th have met any seed at all between 28 and 54’ so far, in 6 rounds of chess. A range of 26 seeds have been avoided by the 41-45 seeds…the ultimate yo-yo; even though the 41-45 seeds are essentially in the middle of this range.

In round 6 the biggest pairing difference is 44 for the game
Jordan v Zileski, This game is also notable because it is the highest pairing in the tourney so far for a seed in the range 51-55.


Other oddities are (after 6 rounds)
>the 16th seed finally gets to play a seed less than 34

>> all players seeded 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, are paired to play opponents higher than 36 this round.

starter

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 10:11 AM
Round 6 competitive index.

For the 6th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 256.9.


First 6 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2, 256.9.



starter

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 06:55 AM
Round 7 competitive index.

For the 7th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 220.7.


First 7 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2, 256.9, 220.7.



starter

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 08:54 AM
Round 6 contained quite a few results which went against the ratings.
Noticed were

9 Jackson, Ralph 2015 3 0-1 Hu, Jason 1873 3.5
11 Stojic, Dusan 1984 3 0-1 Ly, Moulthun 1881 3
13 Truscott, Tony 1783 3 1-0 Wallis, Chris 1944 3
22 Escribano, Jose 1611 2.5 1-0 Voon, Richard 1908 2.5
30 Davidson, N 1637 1.5 0-1 V., Rengan 1239 2
32 Murray, Russell 1755 1.5 0-1 Buciu, A 1633 1.5
35 Yu, Derek 1388 1 1-0 Beckman, John 1576 1


I know which board Amiel and I would have liked to watch. ;)

starter

Rincewind
04-01-2005, 09:07 AM
I know which board Amiel and I would have liked to watch.

Fritz is in good form. It will be interesting if he gets a chance to play KB.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 12:47 PM
I'll code it into Sesha to generate a crosstable from SPDE, so it's easier in the future also.

Can you advise where I can read the cross-tables?

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 01:21 PM
The pgn file for round5 is a complete mess.

The first 31 games are all from round 1.
Also the Kengis V Arlandi game is missing.
It also contains rounds 1 & 2 of the minor which is not obvious from the pgn file is called open05r5.pgn.

Perhaps the organisers can correct the roiund 5 pgn so that it only includes the round 5 open games including the Kengis game and the Minor games can be placed in their own pgn file.

skip to my lou
04-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Lately I've been getting messy files. Even the SP files some of them didn't have past round 2 and things like that.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 02:06 PM
It would probably be wise if they zipped them before sending them to you. I know that if the persons email program sends the .trn and/or .sco SP files as text rather than encoded binary files they can be corrupted.

skip to my lou
04-01-2005, 02:11 PM
I don't think it's a corruption issue. The size of the files itself is much lower than what they usually are.

Garvinator
04-01-2005, 03:09 PM
I don't think it's a corruption issue. The size of the files itself is much lower than what they usually are.
after todays round we are going to work out what the problems are. We have been having computer problems galore and we almost have them all fixed. The computer problems also have been the cause of why some things have been sent late etc.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 03:58 PM
after todays round we are going to work out what the problems are. We have been having computer problems galore and we almost have them all fixed. The computer problems also have been the cause of why some things have been sent late etc.

gg''

You have my sympathy if you have computer problems. Had a few in my time.


If it helps, one method we have used is to just start again with SP.
Use the players list from this tournament and import to a new tournament. Manual draw the first 7 rounds to match the rounds of the OPEN, and then hopefully Bob's your uncle. Usually takes up about 30-45 minutes all up.

This method often beats trying to correct 'corruption' line by line.

starter

ps Given that K. has SP he could in fact have a go himself. He has all the data.

Garvinator
04-01-2005, 06:00 PM
gg''

You have my sympathy if you have computer problems. Had a few in my time.


If it helps, one method we have used is to just start again with SP.
Use the players list from this tournament and import to a new tournament. Manual draw the first 7 rounds to match the rounds of the OPEN, and then hopefully Bob's your uncle. Usually takes up about 30-45 minutes all up.

This method often beats trying to correct 'corruption' line by line.

starter

ps Given that K. has SP he could in fact have a go himself. He has all the data.


it actually goes further than that. Andrew Saint's (bulletin editor etc) computer has had faults, mine doesnt save properly and crashes after about 7 hours of continuous use if i use it alot during that time ie Kengis v Arlandi

You name it, we have had it as a fault
:(

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Knowing Charles Z I would assume the main SP files are on his machine and that they are ok.

skip to my lou
04-01-2005, 06:11 PM
Sounds like someone needs to start using BSD.

Spiny Norman
04-01-2005, 06:22 PM
it actually goes further than that. Andrew Saint's (bulletin editor etc) computer has had faults, mine doesnt save properly and crashes after about 7 hours of continuous use if i use it alot during that time ie Kengis v Arlandi

You name it, we have had it as a fault
:(

Garvin,

After the tournament is over try the following:

1) Open a command window (Start, Run, type in "cmd" and hit OK)
2) Type in "chkdsk c:" and hit Enter

See what it finds. Don't (!) use the "/f" option to fix errors found until you have made a valid backup of your essential files!

Post the output of the command here if you want some feedback on any errors found. Some of them are very minor and can be easily fixed. Others can be a bit trickier.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 06:33 PM
Knowing Charles Z I would assume the main SP files are on his machine and that they are ok.

This is a goodness.


Now, a high tech floppy from Charles' machine to gg'' 's machine (which runs for 7 hours, and which presumably has the only modem in Mt B.) should be giving us 6 progressive sets of SP files to K.?


starter

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 06:41 PM
gg''

You have my sympathy if you have computer problems. Had a few in my time.


If it helps, one method we have used is to just start again with SP.
Use the players list from this tournament and import to a new tournament. Manual draw the first 7 rounds to match the rounds of the OPEN, and then hopefully Bob's your uncle. Usually takes up about 30-45 minutes all up.

This method often beats trying to correct 'corruption' line by line.

starter

ps Given that K. has SP he could in fact have a go himself. He has all the data.


how ya goin K.?

40 minutes has passed by since...whenever

Hav. ya bin able to reload ya local SP with the players file and the data?


Ya culd beat that Mt. B based gang ya know..
Havago


ps
And then when you want updates...who ya gunna call? On the eau-de-cologne, mate.

starter

PhilD707
04-01-2005, 07:17 PM
it actually goes further than that. Andrew Saint's (bulletin editor etc) computer has had faults, mine doesnt save properly and crashes after about 7 hours of continuous use if i use it alot during that time ie Kengis v Arlandi

You name it, we have had it as a fault
:(


I guess its an obvious question, but how up to date is your virus checking software?
If your PC is crashing there is a possibility that its infected (like most others!)
And what about spyware? That can really kill an internet hopping PC if its not cleaned up.
Typical symptons - Web pages not displaying properly, Windows explorer being slow to respond, programs slow to start ...
If you are experiencing any of these and haven't done so already then try downloading Ad-Aware ( and/or SpyGuard or similar ), put the nastys in quarantine and watch how much better your PC performs.

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 06:36 AM
Round 8 competitive index.

For the 8th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 200.9.


First 8 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2, 256.9, 220.7, 200.9.



starter

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 06:46 AM
Round 7 contained quite a few results which went against the ratings.

Noticed were

6 Rej, Tomek 2225 4.5 0-1 Humphrey, J. 2060 4
13 Lea, Tom 1765 3.5 1-0 Dizdarevic, M. 1971 3.5
17 Song, Angela 1771 3 1-0 Stojic, Dusan 1984 3
24 Stojic, S 1802 2.5 1-0 Voon, Richard 1908 2.5
31 Kaspar, Ric 1450 2 1-0 Oliver, Shannon 1644 2
35 Yu, Sally 857 1 1-0 Nour, James 1336 1.5



Box Hill is over-represented on the reprehensible side of the ledger in this list. And a few have appeared here before on the undesirable side. Wake up guys. ;)

But Sally Yu's first win is an upset right out of the box. Well done Sally.

starter

PhilD707
05-01-2005, 07:27 AM
Round 7 contained quite a few results which went against the ratings.

Noticed were

6 Rej, Tomek 2225 4.5 0-1 Humphrey, J. 2060 4
13 Lea, Tom 1765 3.5 1-0 Dizdarevic, M. 1971 3.5
17 Song, Angela 1771 3 1-0 Stojic, Dusan 1984 3
24 Stojic, S 1802 2.5 1-0 Voon, Richard 1908 2.5
31 Kaspar, Ric 1450 2 1-0 Oliver, Shannon 1644 2
35 Yu, Sally 857 1 1-0 Nour, James 1336 1.5




starter

Yes the Humphery game was entertaining.
I thought that the Lea and Song upsets were particularly impressive
It will be interesting to see if either of them can continue there giant killing ways today, (not totally out of the question against Pecori 2046 and Obst 1942 resp.).
If so they will find themselves in distinguished company in round 9!

Lea, incidentally, is a former Tasmanian. Learnt just about all he knows about Chess down here in the apple isle :D

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 07:39 AM
Yes the Humphery game was entertaining.
I thought that the Lea and Song upsets were particularly impressive
It will be interesting to see if either of them can continue there giant killing ways today, (not totally out of the question against Pecori 2046 and Obst 1942 resp.).
If so they will find themselves in distinguished company in round 9!

Lea, incidentally, is a former Tasmanian. Learnt just about all he knows about Chess down here in the apple isle :D

:eek: :eek:
Mr Burnie Chess

You could be in for some flak here mate. Not from me though ;) .
I thought the Lea and Song results deserved to be called upsets <as you say>, but there are some experts on this BB who have rather strict criteria for the word upset (see thread "How competitive do you want it to be").
That is why I restricted myself to the Sally Yu game (rating differential 479) as a declared upset.

regards
starter

PhilD707
05-01-2005, 08:12 AM
:eek: :eek:
Mr Burnie Chess

You could be in for some flak here mate. Not from me though ;) .
I thought the Lea and Song results deserved to be called upsets <as you say>, but there are some experts on this BB who have rather strict criteria for the word upset (see thread "How competitive do you want it to be").
That is why I restricted myself to the Sally Yu game (rating differential 479) as a declared upset.

regards
starter

I'll say "unexpected" from now on. :)

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 08:33 AM
I'll say "unexpected" from now on. :)

hi again

You will have seen that I have been beaten down so much that I have been reduced to saying 'Noticed that....' when commenting on all but the most obvious upsets.



By the way, I am a bit taken by your name in the signature line. On the mainland we would have spelt the first name as Bernie; but these days there are lots of variations in spelling first names. And how lucky that your family name is CHESS, eh. ;)
Just a comment on your proclivity to underline your name; my old 6th grade teacher used to give me heaps for that. But maybe that rule has changed recently too. :uhoh:

regards
starter

PhilD707
05-01-2005, 08:41 AM
hi again

You will have seen that I have been beaten down so much that I have been reduced to saying 'Noticed that....' when commenting on all but the most obvious upsets.



By the way, I am a bit taken by your name in the signature line. On the mainland we would have spelt the first name as Bernie; but these days there are lots of variations in spelling first names. And how lucky that your family name is CHESS, eh. ;)
Just a comment on your proclivity to underline your name; my old 6th grade teacher used to give me heaps for that. But maybe that rule has changed recently too. :uhoh:

regards
starter

Burnie is the Norwegian spelling.
And yes I am lucky. I am usually the one who finds a chip in his custard at the restaurant. :)

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 11:09 AM
After 7 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness



Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 >67th seed to round 3 >4th seed.
In the 6-7 round frame it was Ruperto Lugo, (again…like a bungy jumper actually) > 6th seed to 53rd seed.


Has the yoyo finished after 7 rounds?


No players seeded 11-15th have met each other in 6 rounds*
No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 26-30th have met each other in 6 rounds*
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 56-60th have met each other in 6 rounds*
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 7 rounds
No players seeded 71-74th have met each other in 6 rounds*


In round 7 the biggest pairing difference is 50 for the game
Rengan Vijayakumar v Ilia Zvedeniouk,


Another oddity is (after 7 rounds)
> the 15th seed has yet to play a seed less than 27


starter

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 01:11 PM
After 8 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness



Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 >67th seed to round 3 >4th seed.
In the 7-8 round frame it Ilia Zvedeniouk > 17th seed to 56rd seed.


Has the yoyo finished after 8 rounds?




No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 8 rounds
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 8 rounds


In round 8 the biggest pairing difference is 33 for the game
Pecori v Lea,


Another oddity is (after 8 rounds)
> the 15th seed has yet to play a seed less than 27


starter

Oepty
05-01-2005, 01:45 PM
I think that the 8th round has heaps of oppurtunities for upsets and I will pick a few.
1. Wallis to beat Jackson
2. Ly to beat Bonham. Sorry Kevin
3. Stojic, S to beat Silas

I also think Ali will most probably draw with Mendes Da Costa, and Hu, Song, Zvedeniouk, Rukman Vijaykumar and Guo-Yuthok have great chances to cause upsets.
Scott

Oepty
05-01-2005, 02:24 PM
Has anyone had a look to see if there are any IM norm chances in the tournament?
Scott

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 07:30 PM
Additional to post #197

Now that we have sufficient data it is possible to calculate for each player their standard deviation of seeds played
The lowest standard deviation is Craig Baxter = 7.8, and the highest after 8 rounds is Andrew Hardegen = 26.5
Further, the average of the seeds played can be calculated.
The lowest average of seeds played (after 8 rounds) is Darrel Johansen = 12.38, and the highest is Russell Murray 60.5

It was noted previously that ‘No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 8 rounds’; these 5 players (31-35) have also not met anyone in the bracket 26-30, nor in the bracket 36-38. In summary, those players have not met anyone in the bracket 26-38 even though they are slap bang in the middle of the range and 8 rounds of chess have been played.

Even more remarkably the players (41-45) have not met anyone in the bracket 32-50 even though they are slap bang in the middle of the range, and 8 rounds of chess have been played.

starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 06:37 AM
Round 9 competitive index.

For the 9th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 188.8.


First 9 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2, 256.9, 220.7, 200.9, 188.8.



starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 06:45 AM
Round 8 contained quite a few results which went against the ratings.

Noticed were

1 Arlandi, Ennio 2440 6 0-1 Sedina, Elena 2431 5.5
2 Hecht, H 2389 5.5 1-0 Johansen, D 2485 5.5
10 Wei, Michael 2043 4.5 0-1 Chan, Jason 1957 4.5
11 Zvedeniouk, I 1978 4 1-0 Mortensen, H 2030 4
13 Truscott, Tony 1783 4 1-0 Sonter, Matthew 1981 4
17 Illingworth, M 1839 3.5 1-0 Wongwichit, P 1947 3.5
22 Vijayakumar, R 1768 3 1-0 Pyke, Malcolm 1941 3
32 Arkins, Damien 1435 2.5 1-0 Buciu, A 1633 2.5





starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 06:49 AM
Round 8 contained saw the largest number of draws so far.

Noticed were

3 Smerdon, David 2431 5 0.5-0.5 Kengis, Edvins 2543 5.5
12 Jackson, Ralph 2015 4 0.5-0.5 Wallis, C 1944 4
14 Bonham, Kevin 1980 4 0.5-0.5 Ly, Moulthun 1881 4
18 Silas, Frank 1927 3.5 0.5-0.5 Stojic, S 1802 3.5
19 Ali, Mos 1734 3.5 0.5-0.5 Mendes Da C, A 1877 3.5
20 Escribano, J 1611 3.5 0.5-0.5 Lugo, Ruperto 1845 3.5
21 Stojic, Dusan 1984 3 0.5-0.5 Tulevski, Vasil 1771 3.5
25 Hardegen, A 1820 3 0.5-0.5 V, Rengan 1239 3
31 Van Dijk, D 1680 2.5 0.5-0.5 Guo-Yuthok, S 1578 2.5
36 Nour, James 1336 1.5 0.5-0.5 Schon, Eugene 1279 1





starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 06:59 AM
I think that the 8th round has heaps of oppurtunities for upsets and I will pick a few.
1. Wallis to beat Jackson
2. Ly to beat Bonham. Sorry Kevin
3. Stojic, S to beat Silas

I also think Ali will most probably draw with Mendes Da Costa, and Hu, Song, Zvedeniouk, Rukman Vijaykumar and Guo-Yuthok have great chances to cause upsets.
ScottScott's tips went this way

1...X
2...X

3...X

But it must have been close to a cigar because all three games were drawn.

In his 'to watch' group Scott dipped out on 2 and near-scored two, and two drawn.

starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 08:13 AM
After 9 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness



Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 >67th seed to round 3 >4th seed.
In the 8-9 round frame it is Andrew Hardegen > 73rd seed to 26th seed.


Has the yoyo finished after 9 rounds?

No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 21-25th have met each other in 8 rounds*
No players seeded 31-35th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 46-50th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 51-55th have met each other in 9 rounds
No players seeded 61-65th have met each other in 9 rounds


In round 9 the biggest pairing difference is 53 for the game
D Stojic v Rengan Vijayakumar,

arosar
06-01-2005, 08:49 AM
Send our regards and best wishes to Bjelobrk. We are keenly following his progress here with printouts of results pairings etc. What's the situation for him with norms and all that, if any?

Cheers,

AR

(EDIT: Btw, I don't see the rnd 7 games. Could we see his rnd 7 PGN against Kengis? Thanks muchly.)

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 01:08 PM
The Mt Buller Australian Open Chess Championships

Dates: Tuesday December 28th 2004 to Sunday January 9th 2005

Details: 11 round Swiss draw, 1 round per day, 90 min/60s

Prizes: $18,500 in prizes, 1st-10th place, + rating prizes. Top prize is $4500!

Prices: $90 concession, $130 adult (early bird fees) GM, WGM, IM, WIM free

Contact: Garvin Gray, ph 0422993062 garvingray@mtbullerchess.com

gg''

Is there an update available on the definition of the three rating groups?

starter

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 03:40 PM
Remarkably, the players (41-45) have not met anyone in the bracket 32-50 even though they are slap bang in the middle of the range.
None of the players in the list below have met players in the second list below


32 Ly, Moulthun 1881
33 Mendes Da Costa, Alex 1877
34 Hu, Jason 1873
35 Lugo, Ruperto 1845
36 Van Der Wal, Fritz 1841
37 Illingworth, Max 1839
38 Frost, Peter 1831
39 Hardegen, Andrew 1820
40 Lin, Zhigen Wilson 1819
41 Lilly, Richard 1818
42 Stojic, Svetozar 1802
43 Chadwick, Charles 1797
44 Truscott, Tony 1783
45 Song, Angela 1771
46 Tulevski, Vasil 1771
47 Vijayakumar, Rukman
48 Lea, Tom 1765
49 Alkin, John 1762
50 Murray, Russell 1755
51 Neudel, Bernd 1750
52 Kara, Barbaros 1748
53 Ali, Mosaddeque 1734
54 Zileski, George 1702
55 Van Dijk, Devrim 1680
56 Howard, George 1677
57 Stark, Ken 1666
58 Ghobrial, Adel 1659
59 Oliver, Shannon 1644


41 Lilly, Richard 1818
42 Stojic, Svetozar 1802
43 Chadwick, Charles 1797
44 Truscott, Tony 1783
45 Song, Angela 1771

Oepty
06-01-2005, 04:46 PM
Scott's tips went this way

1...X
2...X

3...X

But it must have been close to a cigar because all three games were drawn.

In his 'to watch' group Scott dipped out on 2 and near-scored two, and two drawn.

starter

OUCH!. I am still on zero. One more go and if i don't get one right I will give up

1. Hu to beat Bonham
2. Ly to beat Dizdarevic
3. Ali and Frost to draw

Scott

ursogr8
06-01-2005, 06:26 PM
OUCH!. I am still on zero. One more go and if i don't get one right I will give up

1. Hu to beat Bonham
2. Ly to beat Dizdarevic
3. Ali and Frost to draw

Scott
hi Scott

Well I don't think you should give up.
Whatever mental model you were using to predict upsets has been unsuccessful on this small subset of data.
However, there are other mental models.
At Box Hill, I regularly produce weekly tournament bulletins that are aimed listing 'upsets from upstarts'. The upstarts are as regular as clock-work; (Rengan Vijayakumar is one for example). Similarly, their victims are also bunched (recividists).
Thus an alternative mental model is just to watch the data over quite a few tournaments and see where the potential upsets lie. This is not the same as looking for under-rated juniors; or even juniors who are monotonically increasing their rating.

starter

ursogr8
07-01-2005, 07:13 AM
After 8 rounds, and on 5.5/8, we have six players. Did they all get to this position by similar fields met? Perhaps not, if the aggregate of seed numbers of opponents is a useful metric.
Here are the details


Seed # Name Sum of seeds played
2 Johansen, Darryl 2485 111
6 Smerdon, David 2431 215
10 Jordan, Bill 2348 288
12 Dragicevic, Dom. 2122 258
15 Pecori, Ascaro 2046 315
25 Chan, Jason 1957 258


I had been tracking in previous posts the performance of Domagoj Dragicevic as a consequence of his rocky start. But, as the figure show, some others on 5.5 have met some large-value seeds as well. In fact Darrel seems to one out here; not that it is compensated for him by an easier round 9 opponent. And also, remarkably, Darrel's aggregate is lower than the five players who are above him on 6/8!

starter

Oepty
07-01-2005, 04:44 PM
If you look at my predictions you probably see I have predicted some of the players twice. I do have a list of players who I believed would tend to play higher than their rating. These inlcuded Ali, Cooke and a number of the juniors. Ali has and I think Cooke hasn't. Ralph Jackson was one player I thought would play a little below his rating based on the form he has shown since he returned to active. This has been below his rating and I think he probably has performed just below his rating but has done better than I feared. I also thought Guthrie might be a bit rusty as he hasn't played much of late, but it appears I was wrong. Some of the players I have no experience with, but I did gain some knowledge about some players from arbiting the reserves last year in Adelaide. This is one of the reasons I thought, perhaps unfairly, Dragecevic would do worse than his rating and I gained the impression that Frost was a real fighter at the board.
Scottt

Leonid Sandler
07-01-2005, 06:07 PM
Bobby72 chickened out in close to winning position ,real Bobby would never offer a draw.

Rincewind
07-01-2005, 07:02 PM
Bobby72 chickened out in close to winning position ,real Bobby would never offer a draw.

The real Bobby is one of a kind.

Leonid Sandler
08-01-2005, 10:00 PM
Lion share of prize money will be going to international players .

ursogr8
09-01-2005, 07:03 AM
FINAL round (11) competitive index.

For the 11th round of the 2004/2005 Lidums Australian Open,
the Competitive INDEX is calculated at 199.4.


First 9 rounds have been 475.7, 352.1, 325.5, 269.4, 242.2, 256.9, 220.7, 200.9, 188.8, 226.9, 199.4.



starter

ursogr8
09-01-2005, 07:20 AM
After 11 rounds, how are we going for competitiveness relative to the seeds around us. Does the yo-yo oscillation dampen?



Biggest yo-yo was Raymond Song in round 2 >67th seed to round 3 >4th seed.

In the 10-11 round frame it is Barbaros Kara> 33rd seed to 73rd seed.

In round 11 the biggest seeding difference is 29 for the game
Lugo v Guo-Yuthok.


After 11 rounds have all players met the seeds nearest to them? In more mathematical terms has the oscillation (i.e. the yo-yo of meeting higher-rated and then lower rated), dampened to the point where we all meet those around our own personal rating?

No players seeded 16-20th have met each other in 10 rounds

No players seeded 31-35th have met in the whole tournament of 11 rounds

No players seeded 36-40th have met each other in 10 rounds
No players seeded 41-45th have met each other in 10rounds

No players seeded 46-50th have met in the whole tournament of 11 rounds

No players seeded 51-55th have met in the whole tournament of 11 rounds

No players seeded 61-65th have met in the whole tournament of 11 rounds



Conclusion > 11 rounds was insufficient for 20 players to get to play opponents in their own seeding bracket (of 2 either side by rating).
starter

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 11:43 AM
Nice photo of the lady who won the AUSTRALIAN OPEN, and a report on the other winners of the AUSTRALIAN OPEN (at the Burnie Chess web-site) if you mouse-click here (http://www.keypoint.com.au/~phild707/)

starter

DoroPhil
10-01-2005, 01:25 PM
When can we expect the final results and games from Rds 9-11? Will the games be made available at all?

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 01:27 PM
When can we expect the final results and games from Rds 9-11? Will the games be made available at all?
I saw them entering games into Chessbase when I was down there for the National Conference so I would assume the pgn files will eventually surface.

DoroPhil
10-01-2005, 01:34 PM
Anyway, well done to all Ascaro, Domagoi and all the other the Victorian players in the event. All the top10 Australian finishers are from Vic!

pax
10-01-2005, 03:17 PM
[COLOR=Red]No players seeded 46-50th have met in the whole tournament of 11 rounds

But that is not the point of the swiss system. The point is to find a clear winner or set of winners. In this case, it looks to me as though it did an excellent job. Sedina was the clear winner, and she played all of her main rivals (2nd-6th), including all the GMs and all IMs bar one.

If players in a particular bracket didn't play each other, it is simply because they performed differently across the tournament. If you want players to play players that are *rated* the same, you run your tournament in a number of rating divisions and play round robins.

11 rounds is more than enough for a field of only 75. Had the field been closer to 120, you might have a case for requiring more rounds.

pax
10-01-2005, 03:22 PM
I had been tracking in previous posts the performance of Domagoj Dragicevic as a consequence of his rocky start. But, as the figure show, some others on 5.5 have met some large-value seeds as well. In fact Darrel seems to one out here; not that it is compensated for him by an easier round 9 opponent. And also, remarkably, Darrel's aggregate is lower than the five players who are above him on 6/8!

starter

Looks like Domagoj managed to play an excellent Swiss gambit, avoiding any player over 2000 until the last three rounds. Of course he then managed 2/3 to players over 2350, so in the end a result well deserved.

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 03:44 PM
But that is not the point of the swiss system. The point is to find a clear winner or set of winners.
hi
Can a tournament have more than just one point? No-one would would argue against the single point that you have in your post; but can there be 'points' for players in the bottom half of the draw too?


In this case, it looks to me as though it did an excellent job.

I too think it did an excellent job for the winner Sedina.


Sedina was the clear winner, and she played all of her main rivals (2nd-6th), including all the GMs and all IMs bar one. Interesting that you choose to measure the strength of the field she played by referring to seed numbers rather than some of the other tie-break methods which rely on the tournament score of aggregated opponents. In fact, I used the same idea as you when I posted earlier >


Seed # Name // Aggregate of opponents seed # // Final tourney position
5 Sedina, Elena 2431 139 1
2 Johansen, Darryl 2485 125 2
8 Hecht, Hans J 2389 187 3
3 D'Amore, Carlo 2448 150 4
4 Arlandi, Ennio 2440 155 5
1 Kengis, Edvins 2543 124 6
12 Dragicevic, Dom 2122 271 7
10 Jordan, Bill 2348 336 8
15 Pecori, Ascaro 2046 331 9
7 Bjelobrk, Igor 2392 167 10
6 Smerdon, David 2431 250
9 Xie, George 2351 181
11 Rej, Tomek 2225 ... 293
13 Guthrie, Aaron 2084 241
14 Humphrey, Jonathan 2060 262

And as we can see from this analysis that Sedina did indeed meet a strong field as measured by seeding-aggregates.



If players in a particular bracket didn't play each other, it is simply because they performed differently across the tournament.
What you say does not seem valid for the players in the bracket 1-5; they performed differently in the tournament but did get to play in their own bracket. It also doesn't look valid for the players in the bracket 6-10. It also doesn't look valid for the players in the bracket 11-15.


If you want players to play players that are *rated* the same, you run your tournament in a number of rating divisions and play round robins.

It is not an issue 'what I want', as I am neither an entrant nor an organiser. It is more relevant to consider what the lower half entrants want. We can but speculate on their ambitions, goals and motives. However, what they got in the pairings, was the data I was remarking on.


11 rounds is more than enough for a field of only 75. Had the field been closer to 120, you might have a case for requiring more rounds.

I didn't contempate more rounds was a likely attraction; so, no I was not advocatig this.


starter

Garvinator
10-01-2005, 09:17 PM
starter,

Your posts are all over the place and too large for the monitor. I dont see this problem with other posters posts. Can you please fix this up as it is a new problem in the last couple of days?

bobby1972,1/2
10-01-2005, 10:57 PM
dragicevic played
sedina in round 7 lost
song 8 won
johansen 9 drew
smerdon 10 won
bjelobrk 11 drew
so he deserved his place man

it was pecori ((bobby1972,booby1992,and bobby1972,1/2 all due to different email accounts sorry))who never played any one over 2000 till last 3 rounds and by drawing against smerdon and bjelobrk avoided a GM opponent and a chance at an upset in last round against xie ,i was very luky

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2005, 11:16 PM
The attached is an overview of my also-ran tournament that I wrote and sent to a bunch of people here who had followed my progress with any degree of interest. Includes all my games, such as they are.

pax
12-01-2005, 09:44 AM
Can a tournament have more than just one point? No-one would would argue against the single point that you have in your post; but can there be 'points' for players in the bottom half of the draw too?

Sure it can have more than one point, but the main point is to find a clear winner in 11 rounds. As a side point, it also manages to give the lower ranked players a number of games against people who are performing equivalently in the tournament so far.

The thing is that your method of measuring the number of nearby rated players a players plays is actually pretty meaningless, since it is heavily affected by how players perform relative to each other. If a particular cohort performs at roughly the same level throughout the tournament they are reasonably likely to play games against each other. If they perform very differently they are unlikely to play each other - it has nothing to do with rating. You would get a much better sense of whether the pairing system is working by looking at the final standings as your measure of nearby players rather than the rating list.


Interesting that you choose to measure the strength of the field she played by referring to seed numbers rather than some of the other tie-break methods which rely on the tournament score of aggregated opponents. In fact, I used the same idea as you when I posted earlier >


Actually, I was measuring it by the finishing positions of the players (which included 2-6). E.g Sedina didn't play Smerdon, but he performed poorly and was seldom in a position to be paired against her.




What you say does not seem valid for the players in the bracket 1-5; they performed differently in the tournament but did get to play in their own bracket. It also doesn't look valid for the players in the bracket 6-10. It also doesn't look valid for the players in the bracket 11-15.


They only played within their own bracket significantly where those players had a moderately similar performance (in the top five that was very likely a priori due to the substantial gap between ratings of the top 10 or so and the lower brackets).

Note that there were only 12 players rated over 2100 (most of those over 2300), yet very large numbers (over half the players) in the 1700-2000 bracket. Measuring the number of games played against a five player bracket makes no sense at all for players in that middle group, as there are far more than five players who have a reasonable expectation of a similar performance.

And besides all of this, how dull would it be if you were playing a whole tournament against players of exactly the same rating? I don't know about you, but I enjoy the challenge of taking on a much higher rated player and even the challenge of trying to grind out the "expected" wins against lower rated players (which are seldom as easy as they are supposed to be).

Pax

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2005, 02:32 PM
pax is correct. The purpose of the Swiss draw is to pair players who are performing well at the event in question. Rating is used only as a default where there is insufficient information, eg where players are tied. For instance I performed at about 1850, which is 130 points below my rating, which I attribute to some combination of the following:

(*) my rating being mainly based on G60/G90 games in which my ability to play intuitive moves quickly and manage the clock well counts for more than in a G90/+60.

(*) the high proportion of juniors I played, some of whom may have been underrated (although probably not severely).

(*) possibly any drift between the Tasmanian and mainland rating pools.

The system paired me with players within 150 points either side of my eventual crude PR from round four onwards because that was the strength I was playing at.

I have not seen any stats on this but I suspect that previous results within an event are quite good predictors of future results within the same event. Unless your name is Ascaro ... what a comeback. :cool:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 09:30 AM
The thing is that your method of measuring the number of nearby rated players a players plays is actually pretty meaningless, since it is heavily affected by how players perform relative to each other. If a particular cohort performs at roughly the same level throughout the tournament they are reasonably likely to play games against each other. If they perform very differently they are unlikely to play each other - it has nothing to do with rating. You would get a much better sense of whether the pairing system is working by looking at the final standings as your measure of nearby players rather than the rating list.




They only played within their own bracket significantly where those players had a moderately similar performance (in the top five that was very likely a priori due to the substantial gap between ratings of the top 10 or so and the lower brackets).

Pax

hi Mr Pax

Thank you for your considered response. It make much sense.
There quite a few issues I want to explore, but I will take them one at a time.

First, the suggestion that the cohort strategy of picking players rated similarly is meaningless; this startled me. Of course at the start of a tourney it is about the only cohort strategy I could think of, and given I was sort of doing round-by-round analysis, I guess I focussed on that cohort strategy. Ok, let us throw it out and look at final placings instead, as the definition of a cohort.
On 7.5 were Kengis, Edvins 2543, Arlandi, Ennio 2440, Jordan, Bill 2348, Dragicevic, Domagoj 2122, Pecori, Ascaro 2046
Five players, eleven rounds; they would be involved in (up to) 55 different games.
Without looking at the data, how many pairings within the cohort do you expect?

Think music.........

Ok. Now let us both go away and count.


regards
starter

Oepty
13-01-2005, 07:10 PM
pax is correct. The purpose of the Swiss draw is to pair players who are performing well at the event in question. Rating is used only as a default where there is insufficient information, eg where players are tied. For instance I performed at about 1850, which is 130 points below my rating, which I attribute to some combination of the following:

(*) my rating being mainly based on G60/G90 games in which my ability to play intuitive moves quickly and manage the clock well counts for more than in a G90/+60.

(*) the high proportion of juniors I played, some of whom may have been underrated (although probably not severely).

(*) possibly any drift between the Tasmanian and mainland rating pools.

The system paired me with players within 150 points either side of my eventual crude PR from round four onwards because that was the strength I was playing at.

I have not seen any stats on this but I suspect that previous results within an event are quite good predictors of future results within the same event. Unless your name is Ascaro ... what a comeback. :cool:

Of the juniors you played Hu is considerably underrated at the longer time control so I don't think a loss to him was really an upset, you were his second lowest rated opponent. Ly is obviously very strong and a draw is not a bad result for anyone under 2000. A draw with Angela Song is also not to bad a result either as she getting stronger all the time. Overall I think you probably didn't perform as badly as the raw figures state.
Scott

bobby1972,1/2
13-01-2005, 08:28 PM
thanks kevin.you know jordan got 5/6 at the end also he lost to kengis

pax
13-01-2005, 09:07 PM
First, the suggestion that the cohort strategy of picking players rated similarly is meaningless; this startled me.

Perhaps meaningless is a bit strong. All I mean to say is that your 'competitive index' will reflect as much whether players of a similar rating performed similarly as whether the swiss system is pairing players of similar ability.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 09:49 PM
^^
Mr Pax
Have you counted how many (out of a max. of 55) the players on 7.5 points played each other? Did you have a guess before counting?
starter

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2005, 10:00 PM
thanks kevin.you know jordan got 5/6 at the end also he lost to kengis

Yes, Bill was staying with me. He too was much happier with the second half of his tournament than his first half. :)

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2005, 10:14 PM
Of the juniors you played Hu is considerably underrated at the longer time control so I don't think a loss to him was really an upset, you were his second lowest rated opponent.

Agreed. I was thrashed in that game. I missed a few defensive opportunities but I felt like I was playing a ca.2100 strength player, ie someone slightly stronger than myself at peak form.


Ly is obviously very strong and a draw is not a bad result for anyone under 2000.

Ly had a couple of chances for a large advantage in our game and missed both. He has a lot of natural talent, is sharp and will be much stronger when he gets a bit more match toughness under his belt.


A draw with Angela Song is also not to bad a result either as she getting stronger all the time.

Angela played with imagination and courage. I probably should have been winning that game but messed up my q-side attack.


Overall I think you probably didn't perform as badly as the raw figures state.

I expected to perform at about the sort of rating that I did given the factors mentioned above. However I was a bit "fortunate" to not do worse as I won one game I was dead lost in and another I was repeatedly losing.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 10:19 PM
Of the juniors you played Hu is considerably underrated at the longer time control
Not based on submitted results he isnt.

Period Rating Perf Score Games
Mar 2004 1736 1790 12.0 19
Jun 2004 1914 2123 19.5 25
Sep 2004 1898 1847 10.0 16
Dec 2004 1873 1769 7.0 14

pax
13-01-2005, 10:20 PM
^^
Mr Pax
Have you counted how many (out of a max. of 55) the players on 7.5 points played each other? Did you have a guess before counting?
starter

Well actually the maximum number of games is 10. I would guess 4 or 5.

(checks data)

Ok, so it's 2 (I think). That simply reflects a variation in performances in that Kengis and Arlandi were near the top early on, whereas Pecori, Dragicevic and Jordan didn't start as well but had a late surge. I don't see a particular problem.

With other groups, the proportion is not likely to be quite as low as that. The same comparison with the top 4 players reveals 6 out of 6- they all played each other.

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 07:14 AM
Well actually the maximum number of games is 10. I would guess 4 or 5.

(checks data)

Ok, so it's 2 (I think). That simply reflects a variation in performances in that Kengis and Arlandi were near the top early on, whereas Pecori, Dragicevic and Jordan didn't start as well but had a late surge. I don't see a particular problem.

With other groups, the proportion is not likely to be quite as low as that. The same comparison with the top 4 players reveals 6 out of 6- they all played each other.

Good morning Mr Pax

2 it is.

Perhaps I confused you the way I asked the question; so I will back-track.
Between the 5 players on 7.5
(Kengis, Edvins 2543, Arlandi, Ennio 2440, Jordan, Bill 2348, Dragicevic, Domagoj 2122, Pecori, Ascaro 2046)

they had 55 opponents

Out of those 55 opponents only two games were between players who finished on the same final score, 7.5

You correctly point out that 10 was the maximum possible.
But whether you look at as 2 out of 55, or look at as 2 out of 10, it is a bit of a surprise?


Now, earlier on you said that playing only players around your own level would get boring (not that I proposed such a solution). But does it not strike you as odd that after 11 rounds, for these 5 players, their most unlikely opponent is someone in their own performance group? And this is the case for all 11 rounds of the long tournament. It is almost as though they are banned from playing an opponent of equal strength.

You are probably thinking starter has found a statistical oddity that only applies for the five players on 7.5 points?
Leave to one side the players on 8 and 8.5, because the SWISS is designed for them; as most keep pointing out to me.
Look instead below 7.5.

starter

pax
14-01-2005, 08:47 AM
But why are we restricted to games between players on exactly the same score? More useful would be to know what proportion of games were played between players who finished within 1 point or 1.5 points of each other.

Example: Take the group that finished on 7 (Bjelobrk, Smerdon, Guthrie, Rej, Song). Out of their 55 opponents in the tournaments, how many would you expect finished between 1 point of their final score? How many within 1.5 points?

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 09:23 AM
But why are we restricted to games between players on exactly the same score?

Because when I did cohorts-by-rating group you objected and asked for cohorts-by-performance (final).



More useful would be to know what proportion of games were played between players who finished within 1 point or 1.5 points of each other.

This is another definition of cohorts. Seems reasonable. If I get some time on the week-end I will have a look.


Example: Take the group that finished on 7 (Bjelobrk, Smerdon, Guthrie, Rej, Song). Out of their 55 opponents in the tournaments, how many would you expect finished between 1 point of their final score? How many within 1.5 points?

Not sure I understand this bit though?


starter

pax
14-01-2005, 10:14 AM
Not sure I understand this bit though?

5 players, 11 rounds, 55 games. How many of those games were played against players who finished on a score between 6 and 8 (or 5.5 and 8.5). For reference, a game is counted twice if one of the five plays another (once for each player).

pax
14-01-2005, 10:15 AM
Because when I did cohorts-by-rating group you objected and asked for cohorts-by-performance (final).

I also objected that your cohorts were way too small. I'm just expanding them a bit.

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 10:23 AM
I also objected that your cohorts were way too small. I'm just expanding them a bit.
I agree with this observation of yours.
As I was tracking round by round in the OPEN I saw that 5 (when cohorts were defined by rating) was a bit constrictive.
'Way to small' might be a bit extreme. I have tracked other tournaments by using wider cohorts and of course the granularity disappears and with it any useful observations.

starter

pax
15-01-2005, 09:14 PM
Since starter hasn't been tempted to guess:

Of the 55 opponents of the five players in the 7.0 group in the Open, 43 finished within a point, 47 within 1.5 points. Of the 8 that were further away than that, 4 occurred in the first round. That's a pretty good statistic I'd say.

ursogr8
15-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Since starter hasn't been tempted to guess:

Of the 55 opponents of the five players in the 7.0 group in the Open, 43 finished within a point, 47 within 1.5 points. Of the 8 that were further away than that, 4 occurred in the first round. That's a pretty good statistic I'd say.
hi Mr Pax

I am always interested.
But....I didn't understand the question....because I suspect I could not see where it was leading.
Thanks for the calculation...it is a bit clearer to me what you wanted.

But...why is a good statistic?
Are you sying it is evidence that the five players in the 7.0 group had competitive games based on this statistic?

regards
starter

pax
15-01-2005, 09:38 PM
But...why is a good statistic?
Are you sying it is evidence that the five players in the 7.0 group had competitive games based on this statistic?

regards
starter

Yes, I guess that is what I'm saying. I could also calculate the same statistic for other groups, but without a crosstable that would be very laborious. I'm confident that it would be similar. The 7.0 group, by the way was randomly chosen, not specifically chosen to givce a favourable result.

Pax

ursogr8
15-01-2005, 10:02 PM
Yes, I guess that is what I'm saying. I could also calculate the same statistic for other groups, but without a crosstable that would be very laborious. I'm confident that it would be similar. The 7.0 group, by the way was randomly chosen, not specifically chosen to givce a favourable result.

Pax

Ok
That is a step forward...I now understand what you are suggesting...to a degree.
But I have been a sceptic on this underlying idea since I first glimpsed it. For two reasons. 1) Player (call him P6) who finishes on 6 points is not necessarily competitive opposition for P7, and 2) I think ratings give the best metric of all in measuring competitive games, rather than the metric that you are putting forward that could be called tfp (tournament final points).

I will be interested to see if Barry posts on this and comments.


starter

Oepty
17-01-2005, 02:41 PM
Not based on submitted results he isnt.

Period Rating Perf Score Games
Mar 2004 1736 1790 12.0 19
Jun 2004 1914 2123 19.5 25
Sep 2004 1898 1847 10.0 16
Dec 2004 1873 1769 7.0 14

By longer time control I meant FIDE time control or greater rather than the ACF normal time control. I still might be wrong but that is the impression I have got of Hu. The longer the time control the better he is relative to most players. For instance I would expect him to beat Kevin in a match at 90/60, but be less sure at 60min.

Scott
Also it is worth noting that his best perf for a rating period was for the one where he played 18 of 25 games at FIDE time limit in the Doberl Cup Major and the Young Masters tourments where he performed considerably above his rating.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2005, 07:34 PM
By longer time control I meant FIDE time control or greater rather than the ACF normal time control. I still might be wrong but that is the impression I have got of Hu. The longer the time control the better he is relative to most players. For instance I would expect him to beat Kevin in a match at 90/60, but be less sure at 60min.

Scott
Also it is worth noting that his best perf for a rating period was for the one where he played 18 of 25 games at FIDE time limit in the Doberl Cup Major and the Young Masters tourments where he performed considerably above his rating.
Although true for the June rating period where he had performance ratings of 2138, 1936 and 2258 for the Doeberl Major, the Young Masters and the City of Sydney Open respectively in the later periods his performance in events with the FIDE time limit wasnt as great.
In the September rating period in the NSW Open he had a performance rating of 1867.
In the December rating period in the NSW State Championship he had a performance rating of 1898.