PDA

View Full Version : Nswca Agm 28/11/04



Pages : [1] 2 3

Paul S
11-11-2004, 11:08 PM
AT this stage I am unsure if I will be attending the NSWCA AGM (scheduled for 2.30pm 28/11/04 at Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club) due to possible other commitments on that day (won't know until closer to the day).

Anyway, thought it may be worthwhile to raise these topics here - maybe other NSWCA members feel the same way as I do and may wish to raise/support these ideas at the upcoming AGM?

1) The Grade Matches competition should have a maximum time limit of 1.5 hours per player (not 2 hours per player as is presently the case). This would get rid of the problems created by some clubs starting at 7pm and others at 7.30pm (eg I find it very difficult to get to far away places like Rooty Hill by 7pm and some players turn up at 7.30pm at clubs that have a 7pm start and vice versa). Also people sometimes have to travel long distances for away games - imagine playing for Manly and travelling to Campbelltown for a game of chess and having your game go for 4 hours on a weeknight!

2) The NSWCA should not participate in the 2005 GP (assuming there is a 2005 GP) after the GP shemozzle of the last 2 years. Instead of wasting money on GP fees, I would prefer instead for NSWCA tournaments to have either reduced entry fees and/or increased prizemoney.

3) There should be discounted entry fees at NSWCA tournaments for those less financially fortunate (eg pensioners, unemployed, students etc), in line with the rest of society.

4) A quarterly newsletter to mailed to members would be good to see (and if need be I would be happy to pay extra in membership fees to have this happen).

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 11:28 PM
AT this stage I am unsure if I will be attending the NSWCA AGM (scheduled for 2.30pm 28/11/04 at Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club) due to possible other commitments on that day (won't know until closer to the day).

Anyway, thought it may be worthwhile to raise these topics here - maybe other NSWCA members feel the same way as I do and may wish to raise/support these ideas at the upcoming AGM?

1) The Grade Matches competition should have a maximum time limit of 1.5 hours per player (not 2 hours per player as is presently the case). This would get rid of the problems created by some clubs starting at 7pm and others at 7.30pm (eg I find it very difficult to get to far away places like Rooty Hill by 7pm and some players turn up at 7.30pm at clubs that have a 7pm start and vice versa). Also people sometimes have to travel long distances for away games - imagine playing for Manly and travelling to Campbelltown for a game of chess and having your game go for 4 hours on a weeknight!
Even though you are in favour of it you are well aware this isnt supported by a majority of the members.
Of the 46 who answered the question in the members survey 25 wanted 4 hr sessions and 21 wanted 3 hrs. In fact only 5 out of 41 replies cited the time limits being too long as a concern.


2) The NSWCA should not participate in the 2005 GP (assuming there is a 2005 GP) after the GP shemozzle of the last 2 years. Instead of wasting money on GP fees, I would prefer instead for NSWCA tournaments to have either reduced entry fees and/or increased prizemoney.
One shouldnt necessarily judge the past as criteria for determing future actions.
On top of that only 6 NSWCA events are GP events.
If the ACF runs a GP then I believe its important fopr NSW to support it.


3) There should be discounted entry fees at NSWCA tournaments for those less financially fortunate (eg pensioners, unemployed, students etc), in line with the rest of society.
This was rejected a number of years back.
I dont see it happening.


4) A quarterly newsletter to mailed to members would be good to see (and if need be I would be happy to pay extra in membership fees to have this happen).
Personally I'd like to see more mailouts of our tournament info on top of our email notifications.
However I wouldnt be in favour of increasing the membership fees to do it.

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 02:02 AM
2) The NSWCA should not participate in the 2005 GP (assuming there is a 2005 GP) after the GP shemozzle of the last 2 years. Instead of wasting money on GP fees, I would prefer instead for NSWCA tournaments to have either reduced entry fees and/or increased prizemoney.
I can guarantee, if i am 2005 Grand Prix Co-ordinator for the whole year, that it will be much better than this year. If it isnt, then ill probably let someone else take over with my full endorsement and support. That being said, the Grand Prix is not just let down in the results reporting area. It has quite a few weakness and they dont all stem from just result reporting.

Also Paul, do you have some personal agenda with the gp, it feels like you never seem to shut up with how bad it is being run, in your opinion.

arosar
12-11-2004, 01:33 PM
Also Paul, do you have some personal agenda with the gp, it feels like you never seem to shut up with how bad it is being run, in your opinion.

It's not a personal agenda. It's a perfectly legitimate complaint. As even you readily acknowledge, the 2004 GP has been badly managed.

I should say, this is not an issue for me since I never pay much attention to an event's GP class anyway. I just play chess.

AR

ursogr8
12-11-2004, 02:43 PM
If the ACF runs a GP then I believe its important for NSW to support it.



I agree 100% with this.

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 02:52 PM
I agree 100% with this.
and regarding cv running gp events?

ursogr8
12-11-2004, 03:07 PM
and regarding cv running gp events?

gg''

Ah; well, as they say in the classics
"this is different drovski".

I once made an observation on the BB that the GP money was like the bicentennial money. That got me off-side with the Welshers. So, I will not say that again. (But I do think it :uhoh: ).

starter

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 03:09 PM
gg''

Ah; well, as they say in the classics
"this is different drovski".

I once made an observation on the BB that the GP money was like the bicentennial money. That got me off-side with the Welshers. So, I will not say that again. (But I do think it :uhoh: ).

starter
and it would get you offside with the current gp co-ordinator too ;) especially in a thread on the nswca agm :P

Paul S
12-11-2004, 08:14 PM
Even though you are in favour of it you are well aware this isnt supported by a majority of the members.
Of the 46 who answered the question in the members survey 25 wanted 4 hr sessions and 21 wanted 3 hrs. In fact only 5 out of 41 replies cited the time limits being too long as a concern.


This is only a slight majority. I think this topic is worthy of consideration (and voting on) at the next NSWCA AGM. I believe that a majority the "rank and file" would agree with my views on the Grade Matches. BTW, why haven't the results of the NSWCA Opinion Survey been publicly released yet?


One shouldnt necessarily judge the past as criteria for determing future actions.


It is foolish to ignore the lessons of the past, in particular the recent past.



On top of that only 6 NSWCA events are GP events.


That is 6 events too many.



If the ACF runs a GP then I believe its important fopr NSW to support it.


If the ACF tells you to cut off your right arm, would you do it?



This was rejected a number of years back.


The NSWCA needs to be in step with the rest of society on this issue. If society at large makes financial concessions to those less financially fortunate (eg pensioners, unemployed, students etc), why cant the NSWCA do likewise?



I dont see it happening.


It would happen if the proposal was presented properly and not undermined/sabotaged by certain people in the NSWCA.



Personally I'd like to see more mailouts of our tournament info on top of our email notifications.
However I wouldnt be in favour of increasing the membership fees to do it.

I was referring to a newsletter, not mailout of tournament flyers.

I am quite content to pay $25 per year for NSWCA membership. However, I am prepared to pay more for a quarterly newsletter. I think a lot of others would agree with me on this. Indeed, a few years ago NSWCA membership fees were around $70 and there were more members then than now (in those days there was a "forced" subscription to Peter Parr's Australian Chess magazine inclusive in NSWCA membership). I was content to pay extra to receive a magazine like that on a regular basis (just like I have been content to pay around $50 per year in recent years to receive the Press/Dunn Auustralian Chess Forum and Brian Jones' Australian Chess).

Paul S
12-11-2004, 08:20 PM
I can guarantee, if i am 2005 Grand Prix Co-ordinator for the whole year, that it will be much better than this year. If it isnt, then ill probably let someone else take over with my full endorsement and support. That being said, the Grand Prix is not just let down in the results reporting area. It has quite a few weakness and they dont all stem from just result reporting.

Also Paul, do you have some personal agenda with the gp, it feels like you never seem to shut up with how bad it is being run, in your opinion.

Some people just don't know when to shut their fingertips!

I am aware that result reporting is not the only problem with the GP. I know that Brian Jones was prepared to run the 2004 GP (and had some good ideas
for it, nearly all of which I agreed with - I have seen the general gist of Brian's proposal) and put them to the ACF in January but did not receive a response from the ACF until July!

Garvin, despite what you think, I have no personal agenda with the GP. I suggest you READ the thread "Grand Prix Concerns". Don't shoot the messenger!

Paul S
12-11-2004, 08:21 PM
It's not a personal agenda. It's a perfectly legitimate complaint. As even you readily acknowledge, the 2004 GP has been badly managed.


Thankyou Amiel! My sentiments exactly! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2004, 10:29 PM
This is only a slight majority. I think this topic is worthy of consideration (and voting on) at the next NSWCA AGM. I believe that a majority the "rank and file" would agree with my views on the Grade Matches.
So now you think the minority view should be supported.
Things dont work that way.


It is foolish to ignore the lessons of the past, in particular the recent past.
True but thats no reason not to try for better in the future.


That is 6 events too many.
Six is a reasonable number and they vary from cat 1 to cat 3.


If the ACF tells you to cut off your right arm, would you do it?
Now you are just being stupid.
A GP is good for chess.


The NSWCA needs to be in step with the rest of society on this issue. If society at large makes financial concessions to those less financially fortunate (eg pensioners, unemployed, students etc), why cant the NSWCA do likewise?
When the NSWCA previously offered concessional rates, tournaments often ran at a loss. Lowering entry fees via concessions would just lead to lower prizes and lower participation rates.

Perhaps if the NSWCA were to reintroduce concessional rates for tournaments then the current rates would be the concessional rate with increased fees for others. :whistle:



I was referring to a newsletter, not mailout of tournament flyers.
Unfortunately when a newsletter was suggested at an AGM a few years back there was no real support for it and no one prepared to do the work.
Perhaps you would like to be the newsletter editor/publisher.
If so I'll recommend it to the Council.


I am quite content to pay $25 per year for NSWCA membership. However, I am prepared to pay more for a quarterly newsletter. I think a lot of others would agree with me on this. Indeed, a few years ago NSWCA membership fees were around $70 and there were more members then than now (in those days there was a "forced" subscription to Peter Parr's Australian Chess magazine inclusive in NSWCA membership).
I do not beleive the NSWCA fees were ever around $70 when Parr's magazine was part of the membership. Can you please provide a reference to support this claim.
Also it is unfair for you to say it was forced on members as a majority of members at successive AGM's voted to make it part of the memebsrhip.



I was content to pay extra to receive a magazine like that on a regular basis (just like I have been content to pay around $50 per year in recent years to receive the Press/Dunn Auustralian Chess Forum and Brian Jones' Australian Chess).
What would you see the benefit of a newsletter being given all the relevant news is covered in Brian's magazine, the newspapers, the ACF bulletin, the NSWCA web site, email and snailmail mailouts.

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2004, 10:38 PM
I know that Brian Jones was prepared to run the 2004 GP (and had some good ideas for it, nearly all of which I agreed with - I have seen the general gist of Brian's proposal) and put them to the ACF in January but did not receive a response from the ACF until July!
I dont ever recall seeing Brian's proposal (I just checked all my emails for the year and can find no sign of it) nor it ever being presented to Council.
Perhaps it got misplaced when the ACF Secretary Joe Tanti resigned near the start of the year.
I know it was going to be on the agenda for the July Council meeting, but Brian withdrew it as it apparently had a deadline of June 30th.
Also his proposal was for him to be the 2005 GP Co-ordinator, not the 2004.


Garvin, despite what you think, I have no personal agenda with the GP. I suggest you READ the thread "Grand Prix Concerns". Don't shoot the messenger!
Instead of criticisng it perhaps you would be better off suggesting how to actually fix it and/or make it better.
Perhaps you should show everyone how it should be done and nominate for the GP Co-ordinators role.

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 10:52 PM
Perhaps you should show everyone how it should be done and nominate for the GP Co-ordinators role.
I am intending to be the gp co-ordinator for 2005.

Paul S
12-11-2004, 11:04 PM
So now you think the minority view should be supported.
Things dont work that way.


25-21 is not a conclusive majority. I guess the point I am trying to make is that a 25-21 in favour of 4 hours "yesterday" could well be a 25-21 in favour of 3 hours "today".

Why hasn't the results of the Opinion Survey held earlier this year been made publically available?


A GP is good for chess.


Only if it is run properly and has sponsorship.


When the NSWCA previously offered concessional rates, tournaments often ran at a loss. Lowering entry fees via concessions would just lead to lower prizes and lower participation rates.


I suspect that the loss making had more to do with budgeting than anything else. Perhaps those tournaments had been budgeted to run at a loss in order to try to attract players to play?

My perception is that NSWCA tournament participation rates (number of players) are lower now than in the past. I would be interested to see how 2004 NSWCA torunament numbers stack up against previous years.

What proof do you have that lowering entry fees would lead to lower participation rates?

If you get rid of the GP fees, I can't see why entry fees cannot be reduced and prize money stay the same (or slightly increase).



Perhaps if the NSWCA were to reintroduce concessional rates for tournaments then the current rates would be the concessional rate with increased fees for others. :whistle:


Perhaps, perhaps not. That is for NSWCA Council to decide.


Unfortunately when a newsletter was suggested at an AGM a few years back there was no real support for it and no one prepared to do the work.
Perhaps you would like to be the newsletter editor/publisher.
If so I'll recommend it to the Council.

If need be, I would consider doing it. However, I believe that it is preferable if this is done by someone on NSWCA Council.


I do not beleive the NSWCA fees were ever around $70 when Parr's magazine was part of the membership. Can you please provide a reference to support this claim.
Also it is unfair for you to say it was forced on members as a majority of members at successive AGM's voted to make it part of the memebsrhip.


I have no reference. I am basing the $70 on memory. I may be wrong on this. Perhaps in one of Peter Parr's old magazines (which I do not have), there is mention of NSWCA fees from the days his magazine was included in NSWCA membership (circa 1996 and 1997). BTW, I used quotation marks when I used the word "forced".


What would you see the benefit of a newsletter being given all the relevant news is covered in Brian's magazine, the newspapers, the ACF bulletin, the NSWCA web site, email and snailmail mailouts.

I see many benefits! Lots of elder NSWCA members do not have email/computers/internet (BTW, I have not received any NSWCA emails for about 6 months, probably due to something like the NSWCA logo that my company's internet firewall does not like, so I am sure there are many others like me). Brian's magazine (while good in many respects) is not NSW specific (and nor should it be). NSWCA snail-mail only has tournament flyers - no news about what is happening in NSW chess. Newspapers (in particular Ian Rogers' articles) are mainly focussed on international chess.

Bill, are you serious about promoting chess in NSW?

Rincewind
12-11-2004, 11:22 PM
25-21 is not a conclusive majority. I guess the point I am trying to make is that a 25-21 in favour of 4 hours "yesterday" could well be a 25-21 in favour of 3 hours "today".

Or just as likely 29-17 in favour of 4 hours the day after.

How do you define conclusive majority? One more than the number of people willing to vote against you?

Not that I have anything against your position. It is a noble ideal to reduce the length of time people spend thinking about (instead of playing) chess. It's just I just hate to see logic get in the way of a good argument.

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2004, 11:23 PM
I am intending to be the gp co-ordinator for 2005.
I'm aware of that.
I was trying to get Paul to put his money where his mouth was so to speak. ;)

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 11:26 PM
I'm aware of that.
I was trying to get Paul to put his money where his mouth was so to speak. ;)
i will be doing up a whole series of proposals after seeing the results for this year. Not sure if i will put them up here though ;) Should I have them ready for the national conference at mt buller? Is that where the decision for 2005 gp co-ordinator be made?

Paul S
12-11-2004, 11:35 PM
I dont ever recall seeing Brian's proposal (I just checked all my emails for the year and can find no sign of it) nor it ever being presented to Council.
Perhaps it got misplaced when the ACF Secretary Joe Tanti resigned near the start of the year.
I know it was going to be on the agenda for the July Council meeting, but Brian withdrew it as it apparently had a deadline of June 30th.
Also his proposal was for him to be the 2005 GP Co-ordinator, not the 2004.


Earlier this year Brian sent me an email which gave a brief description of his ideas on how the GP should be run. As with most "chess emails" that I recieve, I read it and deleted it. As my email is at work, I don't store non-work related emails on my computer for too long (although I print out important ones) - my supervisor and manager take a dim view of non-work related emails.

Yes, my error! Brian wanted to be the 2005 (not 2004) GP co-ordinator.

As to why he sent me a copy of his ideas (and not you) for the GP, you will have to ask him. I thought Brian's ideas were quite good. I understand that Brian outlined his proposals to the ACF in January 2004, but for whatever reasons, nobody from the ACF got back to him until July 2004 (I also understand that Brian occasionally contacted someone in the ACF during January to July to see what was happening with his proposal).

Anyway, if you are interested in what Brian has to say on the GP, why don't you get in touch with him?


Instead of criticisng it perhaps you would be better off suggesting how to actually fix it and/or make it better.

Afetr the shemozzle of the last 2 years, I think Australian Chess is better off without the GP.

However, to answer you question, ways to fix it and/or make it better are:
1) Regular updates of results (at least once a month) on the GP website would be a good start.
2) Get sponsorship.

I'm not going to rehash all my posts in the "Grand Prix Concerns" thread. Go read them yourself. I made some points in this thread regarding what should be done.


Perhaps you should show everyone how it should be done and nominate for the GP Co-ordinators role.

I have come to the conclusion some time ago that Australian Chess does not need a GP. Go read my posts in the "Grand Prix Concerns" thread. As such I see no point in nominating for the role of GP Co-Ordinator.

Paul S
12-11-2004, 11:40 PM
How do you define conclusive majority?

Two-thirds.


One more than the number of people willing to vote against you?

No.


Not that I have anything against your position. It is a noble ideal to reduce the length of time people spend thinking about (instead of playing) chess. It's just I just hate to see logic get in the way of a good argument.

:confused: I am confused! :confused:

Rincewind
12-11-2004, 11:45 PM
Two-thirds.
No.
:confused: I am confused! :confused:

You certainly are. Since the status quo is 4 hours, doesn't it seem fair that a "conclusive" majority be required to reduce it? The 3 hour proposal didn't get a two-thirds majority. In fact, it didn't even get a simple majority. Perhaps you should give Phar Lap a rest.

Paul S
12-11-2004, 11:49 PM
Since the status quo is 4 hours, doesn't it seem fair that a "conclusive" majority be required to reduce it?

No. A majority vote in favour at the NSWCA AGM is sufficient, the same as with any other issue at a NSWCA AGM.

Rincewind
12-11-2004, 11:53 PM
No. A majority vote in favour at the NSWCA AGM is sufficient, the same as with any other issue at a NSWCA AGM.

And poll of players was taken and a majority were in favour or it staying at 4 hours. How is this majority democratically less significant than a vote at the AGM?

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:00 AM
25-21 is not a conclusive majority. I guess the point I am trying to make is that a 25-21 in favour of 4 hours "yesterday" could well be a 25-21 in favour of 3 hours "today".
There has never been any conclusive evidence that 3 hrs has ever been supported by the majority.


Why hasn't the results of the Opinion Survey held earlier this year been made publically available?
There was never any plan by the Council to do so.


Only if it is run properly and has sponsorship.
It can run ok without sponsorship but would undoubetdly be better with it.
As to being run properly we all expected that to happen when Bob nominated for the role. Its easy to be wise after the event and criticise.


I suspect that the loss making had more to do with budgeting than anything else. Perhaps those tournaments had been budgeted to run at a loss in order to try to attract players to play?
No not at all. There was simply a lot of players who claimed the concession.


My perception is that NSWCA tournament participation rates (number of players) are lower now than in the past. I would be interested to see how 2004 NSWCA torunament numbers stack up against previous years.
We know for a fact that a few yaers back the NSWCA ran some tournaments with relatively low entry fees and low prize money and the number of players were much lower than in our usual weekenders. In fact we even ran an event with no prize money and just book prizes and the player numbers were shocking.


What proof do you have that lowering entry fees would lead to lower participation rates?
I never said that. I said lower entry fees lead to lower prize funds which lead to lower participation rates.


If you get rid of the GP fees, I can't see why entry fees cannot be reduced and prize money stay the same (or slightly increase). There is not a lot in GP fees compared to the loss of actual income if you offer concessional entry. You clearly have never done the maths.


If need be, I would consider doing it. However, I believe that it is preferable if this is done by someone on NSWCA Council.
The existing Council memebrs I would have thought already have enough things to do.


I have no reference. I am basing the $70 on memory. I may be wrong on this. Perhaps in one of Peter Parr's old magazines (which I do not have), there is mention of NSWCA fees from the days his magazine was included in NSWCA membership (circa 1996 and 1997). BTW, I used quotation marks when I used the word "forced".
The NSWCA membership fee including magazine in 1997 was $40 and $30 for country members. It was never ever close to $70.
As for your quoting forced, all that seemed to do was suggest it was undesireable. If you didnt mean that then it would have been better to have omitted the word entirely.


I see many benefits! Lots of elder NSWCA members do not have email/computers/internet (BTW, I have not received any NSWCA emails for about 6 months, probably due to something like the NSWCA logo that my company's internet firewall does not like, so I am sure there are many others like me).
I assume you are not posting on here from you company's network now.
Therefore why not use your ISP's email account or get a free email account.
I know my works mail gateway informs us of blocked emails and the name of the sender. We can even request the mail admin to forward the blocked message to us if needs be.

Its my understanding from Peter C that the vast majoiry of members have email and web access.


Brian's magazine (while good in many respects) is not NSW specific (and nor should it be). NSWCA snail-mail only has tournament flyers - no news about what is happening in NSW chess. Newspapers (in particular Ian Rogers' articles) are mainly focussed on international chess.
Parr's column is often full of NSW information.


Bill, are you serious about promoting chess in NSW?
Yes.
However the Council does not see the benefit of a newsletter, especially given the lack of anyone prepared to produce it.

We even planned to create an Council position for it.
And as I said when the issue was raised previously at an AGM there was no support for the production of a newsletter.

Paul S
13-11-2004, 12:03 AM
And poll of players was taken and a majority were in favour or it staying at 4 hours. How is this majority democratically less significant than a vote at the AGM?

Opinion polls often provide useful feedback.

However, decisions are made at meetings (whether they be NSWCA AGMs, NSWCA Council meetings or whatever), and not opinion polls.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:03 AM
No. A majority vote in favour at the NSWCA AGM is sufficient, the same as with any other issue at a NSWCA AGM.
Actually its not.
In some cases a 2/3 majority is required and even a 3/4 majority in others.

Also motions from the floor are not binding on the Council.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:05 AM
Opinion polls often provide useful feedback.

However, decisions are made at meetings (whether they be NSWCA AGMs, NSWCA Council meetings or whatever), and not opinion polls.
I dont remember you ever using that argument when you were pushing for the opinion survey when you were on Council.
Maybe it didnt suit your reasoning at that stage. :hmm:

Rincewind
13-11-2004, 12:07 AM
Opinion polls often provide useful feedback.

However, decisions are made at meetings (whether they be NSWCA AGMs, NSWCA Council meetings or whatever), and not opinion polls.

Well I trust the council members will collectively make the popular decision in this regard. If opinion polls are useful then perhaps they should be used.

Paul S
13-11-2004, 12:10 AM
Well I trust the council members will collectively make the popular decision in this regard.

Don't bet on it! Virtually all of them are in favour of the current time limits for the Grade Matches. :P

Paul S
13-11-2004, 12:17 AM
I dont remember you ever using that argument when you were pushing for the opinion survey when you were on Council.
Maybe it didnt suit your reasoning at that stage. :hmm:

I wasn't pushing an argument.

I was merely stating reality.

Rincewind
13-11-2004, 12:23 AM
I wasn't pushing an argument.

I was merely stating reality.

While simultaneously down-playing the significance of an "inconvenient" opinion poll. Even though you claim the "rank-and-file" of the grade-match players as your support base. Surely if your position was credible, an opinion poll would reflect (not contradict) it.

Seems reality is not your stong suit.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:28 AM
Don't bet on it! Virtually all of them are in favour of the current time limits for the Grade Matches. :P
And all of them would no doubt be expressing the views of their respective clubs as well as the majority of members.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:30 AM
I wasn't pushing an argument.

I was merely stating reality.
In which case your reality is warped. :rolleyes:

Paul S
13-11-2004, 12:39 AM
We know for a fact that a few yaers back the NSWCA ran some tournaments with relatively low entry fees and low prize money and the number of players were much lower than in our usual weekenders. In fact we even ran an event with no prize money and just book prizes and the player numbers were shocking.


You are not using like to like comparisons.

How do tournament numbers for this year stack up against previous years for competitions like NSW Championships, Australia Day Weekender etc?

I think tournament numbers are lower now (2004) than in the past.


I said lower entry fees lead to lower prize funds which lead to lower participation rates.

Then adjust the rates accordingly. Lets say the present rate for tournament X is $80 for all adults. Just change this to say $70 for pensioners/unemployed/students etc and say $90 for workers.

Why are you so hostile towards giving discounted rates to those in our society who are less financially fortunate?


The NSWCA membership fee including magazine in 1997 was $40 and $30 for country members. It was never ever close to $70.
As for your quoting forced, all that seemed to do was suggest it was undesireable. If you didnt mean that then it would have been better to have omitted the word entirely.

Looks like I was wrong about the membership fee (although $40 in 1997 is about the same as $70 today ;) ).

Yes, it looks like I should have omitted the word "forced".


I assume you are not posting on here from you company's network now.
Therefore why not use your ISP's email account or get a free email account.
I know my works mail gateway informs us of blocked emails and the name of the sender. We can even request the mail admin to forward the blocked message to us if needs be.

I am posting from my flatmate's computer. I do not have my own home computer, as my flatmate allows me to use his.

Yes, I probably should get my own email account (although I find that my company's one is sufficient).

As I get lots of blocked email messages (and spam emails), I often don't bother to read them (I just delete them straight away). Perhaps I will now look at the email addresses of blocked emails to see if any are from the NSWCA.


However the Council does not see the benefit of a newsletter, especially given the lack of anyone prepared to produce it.

We even planned to create an Council position for it.
And as I said when the issue was raised previously at an AGM there was no support for the production of a newsletter.

I would consider producing such a quarterly newsletter for the NSWCA.

Paul S
13-11-2004, 12:49 AM
While simultaneously down-playing the significance of an "inconvenient" opinion poll. Even though you claim the "rank-and-file" of the grade-match players as your support base. Surely if your position was credible, an opinion poll would reflect (not contradict) it.

Seems reality is not your stong suit.

Depends which opinion poll you use.

In early 2003 a NSWCA opinion poll of club delegates was done and the majority of respondents were in favour of a 3 hour time limit for the Grade Matches.

Rincewind
13-11-2004, 01:04 AM
Depends which opinion poll you use.

In early 2003 a NSWCA opinion poll of club delegates was done and the majority of respondents were in favour of a 3 hour time limit for the Grade Matches.

So the older the opinion poll the more reliable it is? Or just the ones that support your position that you are bringing up. For a qualitative comparison you would have to compare many factors and also factor any possible influence the 2003 survey have have had on the later one. Without getting into the nitty-gritty it is impossible to really say.

The point seems to be you are only willing to accept evidence which supports your view and ignore or marginalise that which doesn't. The classic example is was with the "conclusive" majority being required for you to accept the opinion poll (a definition of 2/3rds being supplied by you, but after the data was collected). Whereas a simple majority was sufficient to push through any change at an AGM. (Provided you could do something about he "unrepresentative swill" (Keating's words, not yours) on the council).

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 01:06 AM
You are not using like to like comparisons.
Of course I was.
They were weekenders held in the same year as other weekenders without low prize money or book prizes. They were valid comparisons.


How do tournament numbers for this year stack up against previous years for competitions like NSW Championships, Australia Day Weekender etc?
There were 71 in this years NSW Champs and 73 last year. In 2002 there were 82. In 2001 there were 70.
The Australia day numbers this year were down to 54, but it was believed this was due to a number of elements of that weekender being changed as well as the fact that it was affected by a number of juniors over in Perth for the Aus Juniors.
In 2003 there were 62. In 2002 there were 49. It wasnt held in 2001.
The 2005 Australia day weekender will revert back to a format similar to the 2003 one.


I think tournament numbers are lower now (2004) than in the past.
Some cases yes and some cases no.


Then adjust the rates accordingly. Lets say the present rate for tournament X is $80 for all adults. Just change this to say $70 for pensioners/unemployed/students etc and say $90 for workers.
Why should those the adult entry fee rise above its current value to offset the concessional rate.


Why are you so hostile towards giving discounted rates to those in our society who are less financially fortunate?
If I recall correctly the council is just carrying out the wishes of the members as expressed at an AGM.

It would appear you believe the Council should only follow the wishes of the members when they match your opinion.


Looks like I was wrong about the membership fee (although $40 in 1997 is about the same as $70 today ;) ).
Yes you were not even close.


Yes, it looks like I should have omitted the word "forced".p/quote]
That would have been wise.

[QUOTE=Paul S]I am posting from my flatmate's computer. I do not have my own home computer, as my flatmate allows me to use his.

Yes, I probably should get my own email account (although I find that my company's one is sufficient).

As I get lots of blocked email messages (and spam emails), I often don't bother to read them (I just delete them straight away). Perhaps I will now look at the email addresses of blocked emails to see if any are from the NSWCA.
That would seem a wise move.


I would consider producing such a quarterly newsletter for the NSWCA.
Then I'll discuss it with the other Council members after the AGM.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 01:07 AM
Depends which opinion poll you use.

In early 2003 a NSWCA opinion poll of club delegates was done and the majority of respondents were in favour of a 3 hour time limit for the Grade Matches.
If I recall that poll resulted in less than 12 respondents total.

Rincewind
13-11-2004, 01:12 AM
If I recall that poll resulted in less than 12 respondents total.

So it has representitiveness and recency going for it. :D

Garvinator
13-11-2004, 01:15 AM
The 2005 Australia day weekender will revert back to a format similar to the 2003 one.
can i ask when this tournament will be and what will the format be?

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 01:22 AM
So it has representitiveness and recency going for it. :D
Actually I think he got a total of 12 respondents.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 01:22 AM
can i ask when this tournament will be and what will the format be?
I dont have the details handy at this stage.

Paul S
14-11-2004, 03:29 PM
Hi Barry and Bill

The two of you place great emphasis on the NSWCA Opinion Survey which was done in January/February this year and you suggest/imply that its results should be binding. BTW, this is the survey that the NSWCA does not see fit to release the results of to its members, something I am not happy about and something that should be rectified.

Well, that is fine. Now, I am not going to reveal my source, but I know for a fact that with the question about whether NSWCA weekenders should be 6 or 7 rounds, 28 respondents said that they should be 6 rounds while 29 said they should be 7 rounds. Now, next weekend's Seberry Memorial Weekender is 6 rounds. Why don't you complain about this, Barry? Why haven't you made this event 7 rounds, Bill? An Opinion Survey majority say 7 rounds. Or are the two of you selective in what parts of the NSWCA Opinion Survey you select?

If the two of you want to carry on like pedants with the slim 25-21 majority regarding the 4 hours versus 3 hours time limit regarding the Grade Matches, then show some consistency and do likewise with the 6 round versus 7 round issue!

I will just briefly state a couple of points with regards to the NSWCA Opinion Survey:
1) The results should be made publically available. As an organiser at Canterbury and St George chess clubs I know of a few NSWCA members who asked me several months ago "what were the results"? What does the NSWCA have to hide? Is it unreasonable to expect that people who have taken the time and trouble to repond to the NSWCA Opinion Survey should know the results? What incentive is there for people to fill out NSWCA Opinion Surveys in the future?
2) The response rate was small. I understand that about 500 opinion survey forms were sent out and the response rates for the various questions varied between 40 to 60 respondents. This means a response rate of 8% to 12%. I think this sort of response rate is useful as a guide (assistance in helping the NSWCA make decisions), but not enough for the NSWCA to make firm decisions on, unless there is a clear majority (in my view clear majority means 2/3 or more).

Rincewind
14-11-2004, 03:57 PM
The two situations are cmopletely different.

Firstly, I don't play in many weekenders. In the ones I do play in I would prefer six to seven rounds because the ones I do play in tend to be small fields and the 7th round is really surplus to requirement and so I prefer the extra time to be used for shorter tourney, longer lunch-break and/or longer time control (although this would not be how the extra time is used).

Secondly, I never said the results of the recent survey should be binding. But changes to an existing event like the grade matches (which I have playing in in the recent past) should take the wishes of all players into consideration. There are plenty of weekenders with short time controls but the opportunity to play against a variety of opposition at a long time control like 40/90 all 30 is few and far between. I think unless the majority of players clearly want the time control shortened then it should stay as it is.

There is also a scale of importance here. Whether a miscellaneous weekender is 6 or 7 rounds is really a minor issue. There are a varity of weekenders, some six, some seven. The time controls are largely comparable and the only difference is is whether you get one more game or go home early.

There is only one grade match comp and therefore only one chance to play against opposition from other clubs in 4 hour games. If those games are shortened to appease the noisy minority then that opportunity is gone completely.

Do you now understand the difference?

Paul S
14-11-2004, 04:24 PM
The two situations are cmopletely different.

Firstly, I don't play in many weekenders. In the ones I do play in I would prefer six to seven rounds because the ones I do play in tend to be small fields and the 7th round is really surplus to requirement and so I prefer the extra time to be used for shorter tourney, longer lunch-break and/or longer time control (although this would not be how the extra time is used).


Yeah, they sure are different. In one instance the slight majority opinion is in favour of something you agree with and in the other case the slight majority opionion is against what you agree with.



Secondly, I never said the results of the recent survey should be binding.

Maybe so, but you stopped only just short of saying it.


But changes to an existing event like the grade matches (which I have playing in in the recent past) should take the wishes of all players into consideration.

Indeed they should. They should take into account the 45.6% (21) of respondents who would prefer 3 hours and the 54.4% (25) of respondents who would prefer 4 hours. Some of us have to get up at 6am to go to work the next day!


There are plenty of weekenders with short time controls but the opportunity to play against a variety of opposition at a long time control like 40/90 all 30 is few and far between.

The longer time controls (eg 2 hours per player) should be reserved for competitions which involve minimal travel (eg Club Championships).


I think unless the majority of players clearly want the time control shortened then it should stay as it is.

I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?


There is also a scale of importance here. Whether a miscellaneous weekender is 6 or 7 rounds is really a minor issue. There are a varity of weekenders, some six, some seven. The time controls are largely comparable and the only difference is is whether you get one more game or go home early.

You obviously haven't seen the views of some BB posters on this topic in last year's BB.


There is only one grade match comp and therefore only one chance to play against opposition from other clubs in 4 hour games. If those games are shortened to appease the noisy minority then that opportunity is gone completely.

I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?


Do you now understand the difference?

Yes, I do. On one issue the (slight) majority opinion agrees with your views and on the other the (slight) majority opinion disagrees with your views!

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 04:34 PM
The longer time controls (eg 2 hours per player) should be reserved for competitions which involve minimal travel (eg Club Championships).

minimal travel? wouldnt there be people who have to travel from one side of sydney to the other, this would mean that they have a long distance and time to travel.

Is it possible to play two interclub competitions during the year?

Paul S
14-11-2004, 04:43 PM
minimal travel? wouldnt there be people who have to travel from one side of sydney to the other, this would mean that they have a long distance and time to travel.

Is it possible to play two interclub competitions during the year?

No, no, no Garvin! You either misunderstand or did not read my post closely enough!

Club Championships are events played within that one club, and NOT against other clubs! For example, there is 1) the St George Club Championships which go over 9 weeks (rounds) and every round is played at St George Leagues Club and 2) the Canterbury Club Championships which go over 7 weeks (rounds) and every round is played at Canterbury Leagues Club etc etc etc. These are internal competitions, where club members play against each other! As such, minimal travel is involved as each club's players (generally) live close to the club and every round is played at their (local) club! As such, it makes sense to have these competitions (eg Club Championships) with longer time limits rather than Grade Matches where players often have to travel 40 km or more to play away games (the Grade Matches is a home and away interclub competition).

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 04:45 PM
No, no, no Garvin! You either misunderstand or did not read my post closely enough!

Club Championships are events played within that one club, and NOT against other clubs! For example, there is 1) the St George Club Championships which go over 9 weeks (rounds) and every round is played at St George Leagues Club and 2) the Canterbury Club Championships which go over 7 weeks (rounds) and every round is played at Canterbury Leagues Club etc etc etc. These are internal competitions, where club members play against each other! As such, minimal travel is involved as each club's players (generally) live close to the club and every round is played at their (local) club! As such, it makes sense to have these competitions (eg Club Championships) with longer time limits rather than Grade Matches where players often have to travel 40 km or more to play away games (the Grade Matches is a home and away interclub competition).
yes my mistake, i was thinking about the nswca championships for some reason :doh:

Trent Parker
14-11-2004, 04:53 PM
Hi everyone!!!!!

I will be at the AGM but probably won't be at the lightning tournament. (Expecting a late night on saturday night.)

* In relation to the NSWCA Newsletter. I personally think this could work. I would be willing to do a simple letter with upcoming tournament details and perhaps crosstables from tournaments. No commentary. Perhaps it could even save paper in doing a quarterly Newsletter rather than doing a mass mailout.

* In relation to this arguement about Grade match times.
I think my club (Campbelltown Collegians Chess Club) would probably prefer to play the longer time controls as most of them rarely get a chance to play at that time controls throughout the year. My personal view is....... well i haven't played grade matches. Both 3 and 4 hour time controls would mean that i cannot get the last train home!!!

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 04:57 PM
I'ts no surprise I'm with Barry on this one.
Firstly a 29-28 majority is virtually 50/50 a 25-21 isnt.

However there most important reason is that there is only one grade match competition. It is clear a majority of players prefer 4 hrs to 3 hrs.
There is no good reason to change this unless a resonable majority prefer to.
There is no eveidence that this is the case.

There are a multitude of 2 day weekenders.
Therefore 6 round and 7 round weekenders can be catered for depending on a number of factors.
The decsion on the number of rounds is based on both time limit and venue availability.

Paul S
14-11-2004, 05:02 PM
I'ts no surprise I'm with Barry on this one.
Firstly a 29-28 majority is virtually 50/50 a 25-21 isnt.

However there most important reason is that there is only one grade match competition. It is clear a majority of players prefer 4 hrs to 3 hrs.
There is no good reason to change this unless a resonable majority prefer to.
There is no eveidence that this is the case.

There are a multitude of 2 day weekenders.
Therefore 6 round and 7 round weekenders can be catered for depending on a number of factors.
The decsion on the number of rounds is based on both time limit and venue availability.

Your response is typical of what I had expected from you and does not surprise me.

My response is essentially contained in post number 45 of this thread, so I am not going to repeat myself here!

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 05:04 PM
Your response is typical of what I had expected from you and does not surprise me.

My response is essentially contained in post number 45 of this thread, so I am not going to repeat myself here!
if you really believe that a change is necessary, put it up as a motion in writing at the agm.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 05:10 PM
Your response is typical of what I had expected from you and does not surprise me.

My response is essentially contained in post number 45 of this thread, so I am not going to repeat myself here!
You can repeat yourself as much as you like.
It doesnt make you right.

Paul S
14-11-2004, 05:14 PM
if you really believe that a change is necessary, put it up as a motion in writing at the agm.

Unfortunately (to my understanding) it is too late for that (NSWCA AGM is on 28/11/04)! As I understand it, motions have to be submitted in writing at least 28 days prior to the NSCWCA AGM if they are to be binding (assuming a majority at the AGM agree) on the NSWCA Council. To my knowledge motions "from the floor" of the AGM are non-binding on NSWCA Council (even if a majority approve).

P.S. That reminds me, I will have to have look at the NSWCA Constitution and brush up on it!

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 05:16 PM
I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?

I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?
You can repeat this as much as you like but I dont see it happening.

As for basing it on your involvement in chess admin, I would suggest that a number of council memebrs experience in chess admin far outweighs yours and they all support 4 hrs as do their clubs.

Paul S
14-11-2004, 05:25 PM
You can repeat this as much as you like but I dont see it happening.

Maybe so, but at least others can have a look at what I say and what you say and compare the two.


As for basing it on your involvement in chess admin, I would suggest that a number of council memebrs experience in chess admin far outweighs yours and they all support 4 hrs as do their clubs.

Yes, a number of NSWCA Councillors (including yourself) have far more experience in Chess Admin than me.

Thankyou for raising this point, as that reminds me of something. In 2003 there was an Grade Matches Opinion Survey of 18 Sydney Club's main organisers, of which 10 responded to the 3 hours versus 4 hours question. 6 were in favour of 3 hours and 4 were in favour of 4 hours. Needless to say the 4 in favour of 4 hours all happened to be NSWCA Council members! Rather revealing.

As far as Chess Admin experience goes, one of the 6 in favour of 3 hours was Charles Zworestine, whose Chess Admin experience is comparable to anyone on NSWCA Council.

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 05:28 PM
Maybe so, but at least others can have a look at what I say and what you say and compare the two.



Yes, a number of NSWCA Councillors (including yourself) have far more experience in Chess Admin than me.

Thankyou for raising this point, as that reminds me of something. In 2003 there was an Grade Matches Opinion Survey of 18 Sydney Club's main organisers, of which 10 responded to the 3 hours versus 4 hours question. 6 were in favour of 3 hours and 4 were in favour of 4 hours. Needless to say the 4 in favour of 4 hours all happened to be NSWCA Council members! Rather revealing.

As far as Chess Admin experience goes, one of the 6 in favour of 3 hours was Charles Zworestine, whose Chess Admin experience is comparable to anyone on NSWCA Council.
well then, it appears that any one of those 6 should have put a motion in writing to change the time control. They failed to do so and hence deserve the status quo.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 05:44 PM
Unfortunately (to my understanding) it is too late for that (NSWCA AGM is on 28/11/04)! As I understand it, motions have to be submitted in writing at least 28 days prior to the NSCWCA AGM if they are to be binding (assuming a majority at the AGM agree) on the NSWCA Council. To my knowledge motions "from the floor" of the AGM are non-binding on NSWCA Council (even if a majority approve).
Correct.
In fact based on adhoc legal advice I received a number of years back (not regarding the NSWCA) some motions even in writing could be rejected from being added to the agenda if they would essential contravene the law or effect what are essentially operational issues.

e.g. A motion that would essentially lead to insolvency.Also given one of the NSWCA's main functions is running tournaments then any motion that related to the running of a tournament could reasonably be rejected.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 06:07 PM
Maybe so, but at least others can have a look at what I say and what you say and compare the two.
I did and I dismissed yours. ;)


Yes, a number of NSWCA Councillors (including yourself) have far more experience in Chess Admin than me.

Thankyou for raising this point, as that reminds me of something. In 2003 there was an Grade Matches Opinion Survey of 18 Sydney Club's main organisers, of which 10 responded to the 3 hours versus 4 hours question. 6 were in favour of 3 hours and 4 were in favour of 4 hours. Needless to say the 4 in favour of 4 hours all happened to be NSWCA Council members! Rather revealing.

As far as Chess Admin experience goes, one of the 6 in favour of 3 hours was Charles Zworestine, whose Chess Admin experience is comparable to anyone on NSWCA Council.
I agree Charles has a lot of experience but I would think some would have more.
Richard Gastineau-Hills springs to mind for starters.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 06:20 PM
can i ask when this tournament will be and what will the format be?
Although not totally finalised the current plans are as follows:
The event will be held Jan 29th/30th at North Sydney Leagues Club.
The time limit is 60 minutes per game plus 10 seconds per move.
The entry fees are Adult: $55.00 Junior [u/18]: $44.00 if received before 25th Jan otherwise Adult: $75, Junior: $60.
Registration at 10am, round 1 at 11am.
All entries after 10.45 will incur a $10 late fee.
Total prizes: $2330, First prize: $500
Saturday: 11am Round 1, 1:30pm Round 2, 4pm Round 3, 6:30pm Round 4
Sunday: 11am Round 5, 1:30pm Round 6, 4pm Round 7, 6:30pm Prizegiving

Paul S
14-11-2004, 08:05 PM
* In relation to this arguement about Grade match times.
I think my club (Campbelltown Collegians Chess Club) would probably prefer to play the longer time controls as most of them rarely get a chance to play at that time controls throughout the year. My personal view is....... well i haven't played grade matches. Both 3 and 4 hour time controls would mean that i cannot get the last train home!!!

That reminds me of something. If the time limits for the Grade Matches were shorter, then "remote" (ie non-central) clubs like Campbelltown, Koala and Hakoah would be more likely to play (or in Campbelltown's case field more teams) in the Grade Matches.

I know that Koala (Riverstone) do not play in the Grade Matches because of a combination of travel and 4 hour time limits (and that Koala would play if time limits were 3 hours instead of 4).

Paul S
14-11-2004, 08:14 PM
* In relation to the NSWCA Newsletter. I personally think this could work. I would be willing to do a simple letter with upcoming tournament details and perhaps crosstables from tournaments. No commentary. Perhaps it could even save paper in doing a quarterly Newsletter rather than doing a mass mailout.


I too think it could work and be of benefit to NSW Chess.

If I was to do a quarterly newsletter I envisage it having 4 x A4 pages with the content consisting roughly of 0.5 page advertising (which would cover most of the costs), 0.5 page opinion piece (eg one from me about the "biggest problem in chess"), 0.5 page educational (eg Bill summarising how ratings system works), 0.5 page of mini-profiles of prominent NSW chess identities, 0.5 page of mini-profiles of NSWCA affiliated clubs, 0.5 page on upcoming NSWCA events, 0.5 page of NSWCA affiliated clubs upcoming events and 0.5 page of very brief result summaries of recent NSW tournaments.

Rincewind
14-11-2004, 09:01 PM
Yeah, they sure are different. In one instance the slight majority opinion is in favour of something you agree with and in the other case the slight majority opionion is against what you agree with.

The irony of you adopting this line is laughable. However, I''ll respond. The difference is two fold. Firstly, on a personal level, I don't care whether weekenders are six or seven rounds as I usually don't play in them. On a administrative level, weekenders are market driven and will adopt the format as necessitated by the market, available resources etc. Currently there are a number of events and players are able to choose events which suit them and vote with their feet for others.


Maybe so, but you stopped only just short of saying it.

Not at all. In fact, you are the one who is promoting the voice the the opinion survey, to the point of quoting polls which DON'T support your case.


Indeed they should. They should take into account the 45.6% (21) of respondents who would prefer 3 hours and the 54.4% (25) of respondents who would prefer 4 hours. Some of us have to get up at 6am to go to work the next day!

And some of us have to play in home venues >1hr travel from the home of every player in the team. The last two years Wollongong was afforded a concession where all our games were played at St George which helped greatly but in most cases our away opponents had shorter commutes than us. Also many of our players worked at the Steelworks with 6-6 12 hour shifts and still found the time to eat dinner make it to St George for the game, play till 12 (no early night as we car-pooled and had to wait for all boards to finish) then back to Wollongong by 1:30 and up for work (starting at 6) the next day.


The longer time controls (eg 2 hours per player) should be reserved for competitions which involve minimal travel (eg Club Championships).

The trouble with that is you only get to play serious games aganist your own clubmates. The opportunity to play a serious game against players from other clubs is one of the main attractions of the grade matches. I thought I made this clear in my previous post.


I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?

Actually everyone wants it their own way all the time. That is what it means to want. How about you spend your Sydney Chess Admin experience runnnig weekenders and leave the grade matches' time control alone.

As I said before. The grade matches is the only opportunity to play aganist players from other clubs at a serious time control. Unless the majority clearly want it to be shortened it should be preserved at its current length.

I'm not against other ideas to improve the grade matches. But I firmly believe the your suggestion is for a forward step. In fact, it is more like two steps back.


You obviously haven't seen the views of some BB posters on this topic in last year's BB.

I have, I was expressing my view.


I believe it is about 50-50 on this issue (and the Opinion Survey reflects this), and I am basing this on my involvement with Sydney chess admin. Therefore, can I suggest as a compromise that we have a 3 hour time limit one year and a 4 hour time limit the next year and keep alternating? Or do you want your own way all the time?

Was their a reason you just cut and pasted this paragraph again or is it symptomatic of your short term memory disorder?


Yes, I do. On one issue the (slight) majority opinion agrees with your views and on the other the (slight) majority opinion disagrees with your views!

I think I covered this in the first paragraph of this reply. Please re-read and save the wear and tear on my "ctrl", "c" and "v" keys.

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 10:11 PM
here is an idea, why not split nsw grade matches in two different locations ie east/west or north/south, thereby reducing the travel time of teams?

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 10:26 PM
I know that Koala (Riverstone) do not play in the Grade Matches because of a combination of travel and 4 hour time limits (and that Koala would play if time limits were 3 hours instead of 4).
It's my understanding from Peter C that a number of Koala's players play in the Rooty Hill teams because of this.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 10:31 PM
here is an idea, why not split nsw grade matches in two different locations ie east/west or north/south, thereby reducing the travel time of teams?
Thanks for telling us how to suck eggs. ;)
Although its has been done in the past, it is generally not feasible.

Garvinator
14-11-2004, 10:34 PM
Thanks for telling us how to suck eggs. ;)
Although its has been done in the past, it is generally not feasible.
thats alright, anytime :P at least i was trying to improve the situation by proposing something new to the discussion, not rehashing the same argument over and over again :doh:

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2004, 10:44 PM
thats alright, anytime :P at least i was trying to improve the situation by proposing something new to the discussion, not rehashing the same argument over and over again :doh:
True.

ursogr8
15-11-2004, 06:59 AM
here is an idea, why not split nsw grade matches in two different locations ie east/west or north/south, thereby reducing the travel time of teams?

hi gg''

Yes, this is what has emerged in Mexico as the solution.
And then there is a East v West playoff at the end of the Location Finals.

starter


Thanks for telling us how to suck eggs. ;)
Although its has been done in the past, it is generally not feasible.


Oops. Didn't notice this post until I typed the first. :uhoh:


starter

Trent Parker
15-11-2004, 09:43 AM
0.5 page of mini-profiles of prominent NSW chess identities,

"60 seconds with Sike" :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

However I was thinking more along the lines of having the detailed information as in the tournament mailouts, and perhaps just have one standard entry form that recipients could fill out for any of the upcoming tournaments.

Brian_Jones
16-11-2004, 09:16 AM
I think it is time that NSWCA conducted a poll about Sydney grade match time limits that was fair and acceptable to all members. So far nothing has been fair and accepted. It just seems to be a steamroller from Council members!

So far we have heard the views of the minority of players. Yes, it is true that some Koala players prefer 3 hour sessions; others do not care - they want to play whatever the time limit and some have played for Rooty Hill on my recommendation.

But there are players at all clubs who will not play grade matches which involve them getting home after midnight.

So the first thing we need to determine is the procedure for a poll. As it is a teams competition l think we should poll the clubs. Each club can then determine it's own internal procedure. Apart from Koala, I am a member of Rooty Hill Chess Club. Peter Cassettari and I agree to disagree on time limits. He prefers 4 hours, I prefer something shorter such a 3 hours or 3.5 hours. We can conduct a survey of Rooty Hill members and cast a Rooty Hill vote.

I propose that when the Sydney Grade match entry form is available, the time limit options are given as multiple choices. Then a simple majority of club votes wins. Possibly this could vary between grades.

This is democracy. What we have a present is a steamroller based on the views of Council members not players.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 09:33 AM
I think it is time that NSWCA conducted a poll about Sydney grade match time limits that was fair and acceptable to all members. So far nothing has been fair and accepted. It just seems to be a steamroller from Council members!

So far we have heard the views of the minority of players. Yes, it is true that some Koala players prefer 3 hour sessions; others do not care - they want to play whatever the time limit and some have played for Rooty Hill on my recommendation.

But there are players at all clubs who will not play grade matches which involve them getting home after midnight.

So the first thing we need to determine is the procedure for a poll. As it is a teams competition l think we should poll the clubs. Each club can then determine it's own internal procedure. Apart from Koala, I am a member of Rooty Hill Chess Club. Peter Cassettari and I agree to disagree on time limits. He prefers 4 hours, I prefer something shorter such a 3 hours or 3.5 hours. We can conduct a survey of Rooty Hill members and cast a Rooty Hill vote.

I propose that when the Sydney Grade match entry form is available, the time limit options are given as multiple choices. Then a simple majority of club votes wins. Possibly this could vary between grades.

This is democracy. What we have a present is a steamroller based on the views of Council members not players.
Democracy was given a chance already.
Plkayers were given the option of responding to the Opinion Survey at the start of the year. The majority that responded wanted 4 hrs.

Why would your supposed opinion survey be any more valid than the player survey taken at the start of the year.

In fact club votes are less democratic than the player votes.
e.g. club A members prefer the 3 hr limit to the 4 hr limit 15-10. their deegate votes in favour of 3 hr. Club B members prefer the 4 hr limit over the 3 hr limit 25 votes to 10. Their delegate votes for 4 hr. Now although the deleagte votes are tied it is obvious a majority of members prefer 4 hrs (35-25).

arosar
16-11-2004, 09:50 AM
As it is a teams competition l think we should poll the clubs.

Not acceptable. Poll the players, not the clubs.

Oh, btw Brian, just start your own comp man and see what happens. Imagine the marketing potential for your business.

AR

arosar
16-11-2004, 09:53 AM
Why would your supposed opinion survey be any more valid than the player survey taken at the start of the year.

Forget the surveys. Just implement a change. Try it. See what happens. Test and learn Bill. For a systems engineer, surely you know this. Besides, it's not as if it's unprecendented. Council has taken leaps before (e.g. U1800 event, NSW Ch formats, etc). Just do it man.

AR

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:49 AM
Forget the surveys. Just implement a change. Try it. See what happens. Test and learn Bill. For a systems engineer, surely you know this. Besides, it's not as if it's unprecendented. Council has taken leaps before (e.g. U1800 event, NSW Ch formats, etc). Just do it man.

AR
The council is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Therefore even if I wanted to change it the Council would not support it as they believe that the majority of players want the 4hr limit.

arosar
16-11-2004, 11:46 AM
The council is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Therefore even if I wanted to change it the Council would not support it as they believe that the majority of players want the 4hr limit.

Stop using these fancy words like democracy and dictatorship.

Look here, you were elected. You're certainly well within the bounds of your roles and responsibilities to make these kinds of decisions. If such a decision is unpopular then the people will vote you out accordingly.

AR

Brian_Jones
16-11-2004, 11:47 AM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]Democracy was given a chance already.
Plkayers were given the option of responding to the Opinion Survey at the start of the year. The majority that responded wanted 4 hrs.

This "Opinion Survey" was so memorable I'd almost forgotten about it. When was it? How was it done? How many respondants were there? What efforts did you make to get players to complete the survey? What were the results? I think you guys were just going throught the motions, particularly as the questions and results have not be published!

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:52 AM
Stop using these fancy words like democracy and dictatorship.

Look here, you were elected. You're certainly well within the bounds of your roles and responsibilities to make these kinds of decisions. If such a decision is unpopular then the people will vote you out accordingly.

AR
The point is AR the president does not get to decide the rules for the Grade matches, the NSWCA Council does.

e.g. After the 70 point increase at the start of the year I recommended to the NSWCA Council that they raise the Grade match divisions by 100 points (Charles Z also thought this was desirable). Virtually all of the Council rejected this recommendation.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 12:05 PM
This "Opinion Survey" was so memorable I'd almost forgotten about it. When was it? How was it done?
The opinion survey was mailed to all members at the end of 2003/start of 2004.


How many respondants were there?
Around 15% responded i believe.


What efforts did you make to get players to complete the survey?
Those that wanted to respond obviously did. those that didnt were either too apathetic or happy with the status quo.


What were the results? I think you guys were just going throught the motions, particularly as the questions and results have not be published!
The results of the opinion survey were for the benefit of council to guage possible changes to various tournament formats. there was never any plan by council to publish them.

Brian_Jones
16-11-2004, 12:16 PM
Also many of our players worked at the Steelworks with 6-6 12 hour shifts and still found the time to eat dinner make it to St George for the game, play till 12 (no early night as we car-pooled and had to wait for all boards to finish) then back to Wollongong by 1:30 and up for work (starting at 6) the next day.

Such self-sacrifice. Some people will say anything to get their own way in an argument. Now I am happy not to play in Grade matches - I can help you guys stay healthy and get some sleep!

Gringo
16-11-2004, 01:08 PM
A Dictatorship disguised as a Democracy ........

Trent Parker
16-11-2004, 01:16 PM
A Dictatorship disguised as a Democracy ........

Believe what u want to believe Gringo. Lets see you get up onto the NSWCA council and see if it is a dictatorship. If ur not a welsher then get on any state council. And that goes for anyone who wants to call the NSWCA council a Dictatorship.

If clubs want to change..... we have a club's liason person direct your views to him (kerry stead) alternatevely the majority of sydney clubs have a person on council. Why not speak to them.

peter_parr
16-11-2004, 01:19 PM
NSWCA AGM - Grade matches

I recommend 7:30pm start, Time control 40 moves in 90 mins, 15 mins to finish the game so finishes by 11pm.

Total 3.5 hours.

This was adopted by a large well attended annual meeting of club delegates at Canterbury Leagues during my Presidency.

This should end the debate on 3 hours or 4 hours - 3.5 hours is best.

Peter Parr

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 02:24 PM
NSWCA AGM - Grade matches

I recommend 7:30pm start, Time control 40 moves in 90 mins, 15 mins to finish the game so finishes by 11pm.

Total 3.5 hours.

This was adopted by a large well attended annual meeting of club delegates at Canterbury Leagues during my Presidency.

This should end the debate on 3 hours or 4 hours - 3.5 hours is best.

I disagree. However, were a 3.5 hour TC be used I think 15 minutes is a little short for the final period. I'd prefer either

- 40 moves in 80 minutes, remainder in 25 minutes, or just
- Game in 105 minutes

Another option worth investigating is

- All in 70 minutes + 30 seconds per move (Fischer). (Although this could drag on a bit with long games).

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 02:32 PM
NSWCA AGM - Grade matches

I recommend 7:30pm start, Time control 40 moves in 90 mins, 15 mins to finish the game so finishes by 11pm.

Total 3.5 hours.

This was adopted by a large well attended annual meeting of club delegates at Canterbury Leagues during my Presidency.
That was the club delegates meeting organised by Fred Flatow.
The best attended one in at least the last 12 years.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 02:35 PM
Believe what u want to believe Gringo. Lets see you get up onto the NSWCA council and see if it is a dictatorship. If ur not a welsher then get on any state council. And that goes for anyone who wants to call the NSWCA council a Dictatorship.

If clubs want to change..... we have a club's liason person direct your views to him (kerry stead) alternatevely the majority of sydney clubs have a person on council. Why not speak to them.
Gringo wouldnt have a clue what he is talking about.
Perhaps gringo can explain what he has ever done for either NSW or Australian chess.

arosar
16-11-2004, 02:38 PM
Barry's option is good. Let's implement that. I don't like this 3-4 hour business. Maybe if you're a friggin' retiree it's good for you when you got bloody nothin' better to do but spend you're whole night playing chess.

AR

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 02:42 PM
Such self-sacrifice. Some people will say anything to get their own way in an argument. Now I am happy not to play in Grade matches - I can help you guys stay healthy and get some sleep!

Well there were two ways to respond to Paul's original statement about having to get up at 6 for work.

One was to give an example of people who were in worse position but still prefer to 4hr to 3 hr games. The other was to suggest he concentrate on weekend tourneys and give the mid-week stuff a miss.

Afterall, it the NSWCA wanted to increase the number of games of chess being played surely they would concentrate on organising blitz tourneys. But does that fulfil their vision?

My belief is the grade-matches with the 4hr TC provides a unique opportunity to play a variety of players at a decent time control which the average player gets very little chance to do otherwise. In the interests of diversity that opportunity should not be eroded.

Some argue that 4 hrs and 3.5 hrs are not that different. True but it is still an appreciable erosion of available time with an inverse relationship to quality of play.

arosar
16-11-2004, 05:57 PM
Mr Sike -

I wish to express to you that I do not support this newsletter business of yours. It is costly and inefficient. Better to spend monies and effort on an improved website.

If you insist on printed media, then send them only to those members who want them. Do that and you can at least minimise your printing costs.

AR

Paul S
16-11-2004, 07:16 PM
Mr Sike -

I wish to express to you that I do not support this newsletter business of yours. It is costly and inefficient. Better to spend monies and effort on an improved website.

If you insist on printed media, then send them only to those members who want them. Do that and you can at least minimise your printing costs.

AR

:hmm: Before posting this post, did you read the email addressed to the NSWCA Council that I sent you a cc of earlier today? :hmm:

Paul S
16-11-2004, 07:22 PM
I think it is time that NSWCA conducted a poll about Sydney grade match time limits that was fair and acceptable to all members. So far nothing has been fair and accepted. It just seems to be a steamroller from Council members!

So far we have heard the views of the minority of players. Yes, it is true that some Koala players prefer 3 hour sessions; others do not care - they want to play whatever the time limit and some have played for Rooty Hill on my recommendation.

But there are players at all clubs who will not play grade matches which involve them getting home after midnight.

So the first thing we need to determine is the procedure for a poll. As it is a teams competition l think we should poll the clubs. Each club can then determine it's own internal procedure. Apart from Koala, I am a member of Rooty Hill Chess Club. Peter Cassettari and I agree to disagree on time limits. He prefers 4 hours, I prefer something shorter such a 3 hours or 3.5 hours. We can conduct a survey of Rooty Hill members and cast a Rooty Hill vote.

I propose that when the Sydney Grade match entry form is available, the time limit options are given as multiple choices. Then a simple majority of club votes wins. Possibly this could vary between grades.

This is democracy. What we have a present is a steamroller based on the views of Council members not players.

A good post by Brian. Well said! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Paul S
16-11-2004, 07:32 PM
Democracy was given a chance already.
Plkayers were given the option of responding to the Opinion Survey at the start of the year. The majority that responded wanted 4 hrs.


25-21 out of about 500 possible respondents (about 10% of the people who were mailed Opinion Survey forms) is hardly convincing.

However, since you are so strident about this matter, why is this weekend's Seberry Memorial only 6 rounds? A majority in the Opinion Survey voted for 7 rounds!

Don't be a Silly Billy! ;) :P Don't be a Billy Goat! ;) :P Be consistent, Bill!


Why would your supposed opinion survey be any more valid than the player survey taken at the start of the year.

Brian's Opinion Survey would be more valid beacause it would have a much more statistically significant number of responses!!!

Also, I like the idea of being able to vote twice on this question (at Canterbury and St George chess clubs). ;) :P


In fact club votes are less democratic than the player votes.
e.g. club A members prefer the 3 hr limit to the 4 hr limit 15-10. their deegate votes in favour of 3 hr. Club B members prefer the 4 hr limit over the 3 hr limit 25 votes to 10. Their delegate votes for 4 hr. Now although the deleagte votes are tied it is obvious a majority of members prefer 4 hrs (35-25).

I think a smaller club like Canterbury's response would be more valid than a club like Ryde-Eastwood (of which Bill is the main organiser) which does not play in the Grade Matches!

Ryde-Eastwood has about twice as many members as Canterbury.

How many teams did Canterbury field in this year's Grade Matches? Three!

How many teams did Ryde-Eastwood field in this year's Grade Matches? None!

Paul S
16-11-2004, 07:46 PM
NSWCA AGM - Grade matches

I recommend 7:30pm start, Time control 40 moves in 90 mins, 15 mins to finish the game so finishes by 11pm.

Total 3.5 hours.

This was adopted by a large well attended annual meeting of club delegates at Canterbury Leagues during my Presidency.

This should end the debate on 3 hours or 4 hours - 3.5 hours is best.

Peter Parr

This idea of Peter's is a reasonable compromise.

At the very least it would (or should) end this nonsense of some clubs starting at 7pm and others at 7.30pm!

A meeting of Club Delegates sounds like a good idea! We are long overdue for one (I believe that Canterbury Leagues meeting that Peter mentions was about 12 years ago and that there has not been one since that time)!

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 07:53 PM
:hmm: Before posting this post, did you read the email addressed to the NSWCA Council that I sent you a cc of earlier today? :hmm:
I'm guessing thats what prompted his post.

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 07:54 PM
25-21 out of about 500 possible respondents (about 10% of the people who were mailed Opinion Survey forms) is hardly convincing.

"Hardly convincing" because the majority of respondents disagreed with you?


However, since you are so strident about this matter, why is this weekend's Seberry Memorial only 6 rounds? A majority in the Opinion Survey voted for 7 rounds!

Number of rounds in a weekender is a completely different issue. Also 7 round weekenders exist. 4 hour tmie control tournaments generally don't outside of club events.


Don't be a Silly Billy! ;) :P Don't be a Billy Goat! ;) :P Be consistent, Bill!

Name calling is hardly good debating form. It's the last resort of the desperate.


Brian's Opinion Survey would be more valid beacause it would have a much more statistically significant number of responses!!!

Perhaps but has the downside of people having to field teams without knowing the time control in advance. Would Koala enter under those conditions? Would they (or others) withdraw if an unfavourable TC was announced?


Also, I like the idea of being able to vote twice on this question (at Canterbury and St George chess clubs). ;) :P

Yes, your support of the democratic principles is well documented in this debate already.


I think a smaller club like Canterbury's response would be more valid than a club like Ryde-Eastwood (of which you are the main organiser) which does not play in the Grade Matches!

Ryde-Eastwood has about twice as many members as Canterbury.

How many teams did Canterbury field in this year's Grade Matches? Three!

How many teams did Ryde-Eastwood field in this year's Grade Matches? None!

You seem quite oblivious to your shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome. Have you had experience organising ALP preselection polls?

Almost all NSWCA members were given a chance to have a say. One vote per person. What could be more democratic than that?

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 07:55 PM
A meeting of Club Delegates sounds like a good idea! We are long overdue for one (I believe that Canterbury Leagues meeting that Peter mentions was about 12 years ago and that there has not been one since that time)!
You really shouldnt comment on things you do not know, especially if you are going to make them as a statement of fact, when in fact they are not.
There have been many others since then but generally poorly attended by the clubs. They were abolished a few years back because of this.

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 07:57 PM
At the very least it would (or should) end this nonsense of some clubs starting at 7pm and others at 7.30pm!

How many clubs start at 7? From memory it was just one. Why is a 30 minute variance in start time "nonsense".

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 08:04 PM
I think a smaller club like Canterbury's response would be more valid than a club like Ryde-Eastwood (of which Bill is the main organiser) which does not play in the Grade Matches!
As far as I am aware Ryde-Eastwood did not respond to your club based survey of which you received 12 responses. As such there was no skewing of any results.


Ryde-Eastwood has about twice as many members as Canterbury.

How many teams did Canterbury field in this year's Grade Matches? Three!

How many teams did Ryde-Eastwood field in this year's Grade Matches? None!
Ha ha ha.
I wondered if you would be silly enough ro post something like that and you walked tight into it.

When you as club delegate for Canterbury in the Western Suburbs competition (run by Brian Jones) voted on a 3 or 4 hr limit a couple of years back, you voted 4 3 hrs, Ryde Easwtood voted for 4. The 3 hrs won by a slight majority.

How many teams did Ryde-Eastwood enter. Many.
How many teams did Canterbury enter. None.

What does this show. Canterbuty got the time limit they wanted and entered no teams. Ryde Eastwood didnt get what they wanted but still entered many teams.

Garvinator
16-11-2004, 08:11 PM
are you three trying to achieve anything other than point or time scoring :P

Paul S
16-11-2004, 08:12 PM
"Hardly convincing" because the majority of respondents disagreed with you?

Hardly convincing because:
1) Only about 10% of possible respondents responded!
2) The majority was slim, 25-21!


Number of rounds in a weekender is a completely different issue. Also 7 round weekenders exist. 4 hour tmie control tournaments generally don't outside of club events.

So why not try the same principle for the Grade Matches? Perhaps have one year with 3 hours and one year with 4 hours and alternate?


Name calling is hardly good debating form. It's the last resort of the desperate.

I put a ;) :P after it! Despite what you (and possibly others) think, I have considerable respect for Bill because of his significant contribution to Chess Admin (especially with regards to the ratings). We actually agree on a lot of issues. However, he is wrong sometimes (ie on those occasions where we disagree with each other ;) )! And yes, he does carry on like a Silly Billy and/or Billy Goat on this BB sometimes (just like we all do on occasions - even me and you)!



Perhaps but has the downside of people having to field teams without knowing the time control in advance. Would Koala enter under those conditions? Would they (or others) withdraw if an unfavourable TC was announced?

Ask Brian Jones and the clubs in question!


Yes, your support of the democratic principles is well documented in this debate already.

Yes, it is. While I was being a little tongue in cheek, why shouldn't I be entitled to two votes? This year I was Captain of TWO Grade Matches teams (Canterbury U1600 and St George U1400). At any rate, why shouldn't mey vote be worth more than someone like Bill, who did not play in the Grade Matches this year (or for that matter for many years previously)?


You seem quite oblivious to your shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome. Have you had experience organising ALP preselection polls?

What about your and Bill's shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome?

And no, I have had no involvement/experience with organising ALP preselection polls! Have you?


Almost all NSWCA members were given a chance to have a say. One vote per person. What could be more democratic than that?

Sounds OK to me. However, at the same time the more statistically significant the better. Which is why I like Brian Jones' idea!

Paul S
16-11-2004, 08:15 PM
are you three trying to achieve anything other than point or time scoring :P

Ask Bill and Barry! ;) :P

They have far more time available to spend on this forum than I do, as can be seen by their post count number!

Paul S
16-11-2004, 08:20 PM
You really shouldnt comment on things you do not know, especially if you are going to make them as a statement of fact, when in fact they are not.
There have been many others since then but generally poorly attended by the clubs. They were abolished a few years back because of this.

Well, I have never been aware of any - even the Fred Flatow organised one of about 12 years ago, and I have been on the Canterbury Leagues Chess Club Committee for about 10 years, and the Main Organiser there for about the last 5 years!

So how about the NSWCA schedule a meeting of chess club delegates for some time in the near future as a matter of priority? :hmm: There is much that needs to be acted on - most NSW chess clubs membership is declining, interclub tournament numbers are declining etc etc!

Paul S
16-11-2004, 08:42 PM
As far as I am aware Ryde-Eastwood did not respond to your club based survey of which you received 12 responses. As such there was no skewing of any results.

As I recall this was because there was some mix up between you and Tom Powers as to whose responsibility it was to fill it out.


Ha ha ha.
I wondered if you would be silly enough ro post something like that and you walked tight into it.

When you as club delegate for Canterbury in the Western Suburbs competition (run by Brian Jones) voted on a 3 or 4 hr limit a couple of years back, you voted 4 3 hrs, Ryde Easwtood voted for 4. The 3 hrs won by a slight majority.

How many teams did Ryde-Eastwood enter. Many.
How many teams did Canterbury enter. None.

What does this show. Canterbuty got the time limit they wanted and entered no teams. Ryde Eastwood didnt get what they wanted but still entered many teams.

I was not aware you had set some sort of trap for me. If you have, the joke is on you, not me!

I put a couple of lengthy posts on this matter on either the previous BB or earlier this year here. Very briefly, the details are as follows........

Essentially you can "blame" Bob Keast (and to a lesser extent people like Fred Flatow and Kerry Stead) for this and not me!

At Canterbury's 2001 AGM I suggested that Canterbury was playing in too many (four) interclub competitions per year and that one of them should be replaced by a Club Championship. I suggested the Grade Matches be the tournament to go. Well, the then NSWCA President Bob Keast almost bit my head off when I made that suggestion (and others present like Fred Flatow and Kerry Stead also strongly disagreed with me). As a result, Canterbury played in all 4 interclub competitions (Western Suburbs, Grade Matches, Combined Leagues Rapidplay and Interleagues) in 2001.

There was, however, during 2001 a general agreement among Canterbury's main organisers that Canterbury was playing in too many interclub competitions (most Sydney clubs only play in 2 or 3 interclub competitions a year while Canterbury played in all 4). So, as a result of all this we had a Committee meeting just before the 2002 AGM and (due to the strong support of the Grade Matches competition from Bob Keast and Fred Flatow in particular) it was decided that Brian Jones' Western Suburbs competition would have to be the one to go.

As you correctly point out, I prefer the time limits (and other facets) of Brian's competition to the Grade Matches. However, despite what you seem to think (even though I have probably done about 70% of the organising work at Canterbury over the last 5 years or so), I sometimes don't get my way there! In fact I don't get my way there more often than you think!

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 08:42 PM
Almost all NSWCA members were given a chance to have a say. One vote per person. What could be more democratic than that?
Sounds OK to me.

Thanks you. The tribe has spoken. Time for you to leave the island.

Paul S
16-11-2004, 08:46 PM
Thanks you. The tribe has spoken. Time for you to leave the island.

Who is the "tribe"? You and Bill?

I won't be intimidated by the bully boy tactics of you and Bill on this forum!

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 08:50 PM
Who is the "tribe"? You and Bill?

I won't be intimidated by the bully boy tactics of you and Bill on this forum!

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The 46 respondents of the opinion poll.

Paul S
16-11-2004, 09:16 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The 46 respondents of the opinion poll.

:eek: :rolleyes: Oh, right! Lets see now. :hmm: About 500 opinion survey forms were sent out. 46 people responded, of which 25 (54.4%) voted for 4 hours and 21 (45.6%) voted for 3 hours.

:hmm: So, according to Barry, because 25/500 (5%) of people say I should "leave the island" I should do so! :doh:

This may be a "clear majority" to Barry, but it doesn't sound like much of a majority to me! :doh:

:hmm: Run that by me again, Barry. You know, the bit about manipulating opinion polls to suit your own purposes! :owned:

Lastly, why haven't the NSWCA released the results of this opinion survey so that NSW chess players can see it for themselves???

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:05 PM
Well, I have never been aware of any - even the Fred Flatow organised one of about 12 years ago, and I have been on the Canterbury Leagues Chess Club Committee for about 10 years, and the Main Organiser there for about the last 5 years!
Your lack of awareness of the past is not my problem.


So how about the NSWCA schedule a meeting of chess club delegates for some time in the near future as a matter of priority? :hmm:
When held in the past the only club delegates who bothered to turn up on a regular basis were those who were on council including Charles Z who was on Council at the time. In fact if I recall correctly it was during Charles Z's stint as President that the delagate meetings were finally discontinued.
I am unaware of any plans by council to resurrect them.

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 10:08 PM
:eek: :rolleyes: Oh, right! Lets see now. :hmm: About 500 opinion survey forms were sent out. 46 people responded, of which 25 (54.4%) voted for 4 hours and 21 (45.6%) voted for 3 hours.

:hmm: So, according to Barry, because 25/500 (5%) of people say I should "leave the island" I should do so! :doh:

This may be a "clear majority" to Barry, but it doesn't sound like much of a majority to me! :doh:

:hmm: Run that by me again, Barry. You know, the bit about manipulating opinion polls to suit your own purposes! :owned:

Lastly, why haven't the NSWCA released the results of this opinion survey so that NSW chess players can see it for themselves???

Voting is not compulsory and those who would have wanted a change to the status quo are actually more likely to respond than those who do not. So while the sample is not statistically significant, it showed that of those who could bother, more preferred to keep the time control unchanged.

While not certain, I expect the actual number of those happy with the status quo to be higher than that revealed in the poll, since a greater proportion of these people would have just failed to respond due to apathy.

This is all beside thepoint anyway as democratic votes don;t have to be statistically significant. You have a show of hand and the biggest number wins. In this case your side didn't, get over it.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:12 PM
Hardly convincing because:
1) Only about 10% of possible respondents responded!
2) The majority was slim, 25-21!
Why it is significant was explained already .
Your lack of understanding is not our problem.



So why not try the same principle for the Grade Matches? Perhaps have one year with 3 hours and one year with 4 hours and alternate?

Why weekenders are 6 or 7 rounds was explained already. Alternating time limits for grade matchs wont be happening.


I put a ;) :P after it! Despite what you (and possibly others) think, I have considerable respect for Bill because of his significant contribution to Chess Admin (especially with regards to the ratings). We actually agree on a lot of issues. However, he is wrong sometimes (ie on those occasions where we disagree with each other ;) )! And yes, he does carry on like a Silly Billy and/or Billy Goat on this BB sometimes (just like we all do on occasions - even me and you)!
You will notice I have so far refrained from referring to you as a goose.
However if you keep this up that may soon chnage.


Yes, it is. While I was being a little tongue in cheek, why shouldn't I be entitled to two votes? This year I was Captain of TWO Grade Matches teams (Canterbury U1600 and St George U1400). At any rate, why shouldn't mey vote be worth more than someone like Bill, who did not play in the Grade Matches this year (or for that matter for many years previously)?
You are however only one player/member. Your vote is worth no more or no less than anyones elses.



What about your and Bill's shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome?
How did we manipulate the polls.
In fact the questions asked in the opinion survey were designed by you and approved by council.
It therefore isnt our fault that you didnt phrase the questions sufficiently to get the answers you wanted.


Sounds OK to me. However, at the same time the more statistically significant the better. Which is why I like Brian Jones' idea!
How can Brian's be more statistically significant. The opinion survey by the NSWCA went to all members.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 10:13 PM
are you three trying to achieve anything other than point or time scoring :P

I think it's pretty obvious they're NOT!

FYI, what's wrong with trialling the three hours? 90 mins each is an eternity to think. Not only this but numbers will drop if you keep four hour but I doubt they would if you trialled three.

There is just no dynamic element in the establishment any more, man.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:18 PM
I think it's pretty obvious they're NOT!

FYI, what's wrong with trialling the three hours? 90 mins each is an eternity to think. Not only this but numbers will drop if you keep four hour but I doubt they would if you trialled three.
Why should we do that.
The NSWCA Council's opinion is that the majority of players prefer 4 hrs compared to 3 hrs. This was supported by the opinion survey it carried out.


There is just no dynamic element in the establishment any more, man.
Well then get yourself elected to some position in your own state of QLD and do something about it.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:23 PM
:eek: :rolleyes: Oh, right! Lets see now. :hmm: About 500 opinion survey forms were sent out. 46 people responded, of which 25 (54.4%) voted for 4 hours and 21 (45.6%) voted for 3 hours.

:hmm: So, according to Barry, because 25/500 (5%) of people say I should "leave the island" I should do so! :doh:

This may be a "clear majority" to Barry, but it doesn't sound like much of a majority to me! :doh:
That just demonstartes you lack of understanding of opinion polls, especially non compulsory ones.

Barry explained it perfectly in his reply.


:hmm: Run that by me again, Barry. You know, the bit about manipulating opinion polls to suit your own purposes! :owned:
The only one apparently trying to manipulate poll results is you.


Lastly, why haven't the NSWCA released the results of this opinion survey so that NSW chess players can see it for themselves???
Because as I explained above there was never any plan by council to publish the results as the results were for the benefit of Council to use for planning purposes.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:24 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Actually I think your reference went over his head. ;)

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 10:51 PM
Why should we do that.
The NSWCA Council's opinion is that the majority of players prefer 4 hrs compared to 3 hrs. This was supported by the opinion survey it carried out.

Because from what others have said on this thread I'm not convinced the methodology with which the survey was conducted was the best. There is also the issue of the margin. And, again, you don't consider the potential for dropout.



Well then get yourself elected to some position in your own state of QLD and do something about it.

I've been on the CAQ Council in the past, I feel I can get more done by posting here. Just offering you another perspective here Bill but as usual you get ultra-defensive if you think someone's challenging your views.

Garvinator
16-11-2004, 10:57 PM
Well then get yourself elected to some position in your own state of QLD and do something about it.
that has already been covered by another caq bb member ;)

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:06 PM
Because from what others have said on this thread I'm not convinced the methodology with which the survey was conducted was the best.
The point is that the person complaining (Paul S) is the person that organised the opinion survey in the first place.


There is also the issue of the margin.
You appear to being ignoring Barrys comment re non compulsory opinion polls.


And, again, you don't consider the potential for dropout.
There is no evidence to suggest that people are dropping out because of the time limit.



I've been on the CAQ Council in the past, I feel I can get more done by posting here.
How so.
It certainly would not appear that what you say is having any influence on the CAQ.


Just offering you another perspective here Bill but as usual you get ultra-defensive if you think someone's challenging your views.
I'm just asking you to back up you statements with some actual facts.

How would you like it if the majority of CAQ members decided rapid games were rubbish and should no longer be played.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:27 PM
The point is that the person complaining (Paul S) is the person that organised the opinion survey in the first place.

That may be so and he may have punished himself but is that really fair to say to him that he got what he deserved?


You appear to being ignoring Barrys comment re non compulsory opinion polls.

I was just concerned there may have been an issue with accuracy.


There is no evidence to suggest that people are dropping out because of the time limit.

Hopefully they won't but perhaps they will.. I suppose time will tell yet if you don't make the change you have nothing to compare to and will never truly know.


How so.
It certainly would not appear that what you say is having any influence on the CAQ.

Oh Bill, you should know what they say about the tip of the iceberg...


How would you like it if the majority of CAQ members decided rapid games were rubbish and should no longer be played.

I'd be soooooooo disappointed :(

But oh well, you get that. I would at least listen to people's concerns. But since the numbers that play Rapid here are huge I doubt I have anything to worry about. :)

Trent Parker
16-11-2004, 11:28 PM
How many clubs start at 7? From memory it was just one. Why is a 30 minute variance in start time "nonsense".

I know Campbelltown used to start at 7 before this year. Campbelltown Catholic club has extended their hours. Now start 7.30

Trent Parker
16-11-2004, 11:32 PM
Another option worth investigating is

- All in 70 minutes + 30 seconds per move (Fischer). (Although this could drag on a bit with long games).

:hmm: A potential problem..... Campbelltown still uses analogue clocks!!!! :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 11:37 PM
I know Campbelltown used to start at 7 before this year. Campbelltown Catholic club has extended their hours. Now start 7.30

Thanks for the detail, Trent. I played in the u1800 two years ago and I seem to remember there being one team with a 7 o'clock start. I can't remember who it was, but I don't think it was Campbelltown as you didn't field a team in that division that year, I think.

Still the real question is, can a 30 minute variance be seriously called "nonsense". It would seem to be a minor concession to accomodate facilities availability.

If Paul's nose was really put that much out of joint by it, he could just turn up 30 minutes late and take a the hit on his clock. Then he would have a 7:30 start and 90 minutes on the clock (his clock anyway). The best of both worlds.

Trent Parker
16-11-2004, 11:38 PM
However, since you are so strident about this matter, why is this weekend's Seberry Memorial only 6 rounds? A majority in the Opinion Survey voted for 7 rounds!


Mr Sike Mr Sike Mr Sike :wall: :wall: :wall: :naughty:

This is different. Other things affect the running of weekenders eg. venue availability. Also Weekenders are flexible so as to cater for both those who prefer 6 rounds or prefer 7 rounds.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:38 PM
That may be so and he may have punished himself but is that really fair to say to him that he got what he deserved?
I dont believe I said he got what he deserved.
What Is aid was that its a bit rich for him to criticise the result given he chose the questions.


I was just concerned there may have been an issue with accuracy.
There was no evidence of that, hence you shouldnt have needlessly speculated.


Hopefully they won't but perhaps they will.. I suppose time will tell yet if you don't make the change you have nothing to compare to and will never truly know.
You could make the change and still never truly know even if there were dropouts. There reasons for dropping out might be totally unrelated to the time limit.


Oh Bill, you should know what they say about the tip of the iceberg...
Yes, but I'm on good terms with the iceberg. ;)


I'd be soooooooo disappointed :(

But oh well, you get that. I would at least listen to people's concerns. But since the numbers that play Rapid here are huge I doubt I have anything to worry about. :)
Yes but given that there are many opportunities for various weekend formats then rapid should still have its place even if disliked by the majority.
Given there is only one grade match competition then what is desired by the majority will prevail.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:40 PM
Mr Sike Mr Sike Mr Sike :wall: :wall: :wall: :naughty:

This is different. Other things affect the running of weekenders eg. venue availability. Also Weekenders are flexible so as to cater for both those who prefer 6 rounds or prefer 7 rounds.
Exactly Trent.
There are many weekenders so they can cater for various formats.
There is only one NSWCA Grade Match Competition.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:41 PM
If Paul's nose was really put that much out of joint by it, he could just turn up 30 minutes late and take a the hit on his clock. Then he would have a 7:30 start and 90 minutes on the clock (his clock anyway). The best of both worlds.
Ha ha ha.
What a brilliant suggestion.
I dont however see him liking that suggestion. ;)

Trent Parker
16-11-2004, 11:43 PM
interclub tournament numbers are declining etc etc!

Well i'm not sure about the other interclub competitions, but wasn't there more grade teams this year compared to last year?????

Garvinator
16-11-2004, 11:53 PM
is it possible to run two grade match competitions during the year? One in the first half of the year and one in the second.

Trent Parker
17-11-2004, 12:06 AM
To be brutally honest i would like to see a rethink on Club chess. I think it is important that each club has their local open tournament that they can play in but i would like to see it planned out a bit better in order to enable people to play at other clubs open tournaments. Eg. At the moment the Fisher's Ghost open, the Canterbury Open and a tournament at Hakoah are all running on monday nights. I havent had a look to see what happens before the interclub tournaments are played, but wouldn't it be better off if each tournament was held over a different period of monday nights?

An arguement someone might come up with (noticing that i am a campbelltown Chess club member which holds the fisher's Ghost) might be "move the fisher's Ghost". However Campbelltown City council asists us somewhat in the preparations for the fishers ghost open as it is recognised as an event of Campbelltown City's "Festival of Fisher's Ghost" which is held round about now.

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 12:08 AM
sorry to go off topic, but who are you talking about in your signature trent?

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:10 AM
is it possible to run two grade match competitions during the year? One in the first half of the year and one in the second.
No. The calendar is already full as it is.

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 12:12 AM
No. The calendar is already full as it is.
ok then, we dont have an interclub competition at the moment, that might be change next year, but as it stands, we will take your second competition to help out :lol: :lol: ;) :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:13 AM
To be brutally honest i would like to see a rethink on Club chess. I think it is important that each club has their local open tournament that they can play in but i would like to see it planned out a bit better in order to enable people to play at other clubs open tournaments. Eg. At the moment the Fisher's Ghost open, the Canterbury Open and a tournament at Hakoah are all running on monday nights. I havent had a look to see what happens before the interclub tournaments are played, but wouldn't it be better off if each tournament was held over a different period of monday nights?

An arguement someone might come up with (noticing that i am a campbelltown Chess club member which holds the fisher's Ghost) might be "move the fisher's Ghost". However Campbelltown City council asists us somewhat in the preparations for the fishers ghost open as it is recognised as an event of Campbelltown City's "Festival of Fisher's Ghost" which is held round about now.
The problem is that most clubs have their chess nights on mondays or tuesdays. Hence any competitions they run which are open to members and non members alike will always clash.
For example Hakoah runs tournaments virually all year open to allcomers. Hence their tournaments will always clash with someone.
Of the 3 you mention the Canterbury Open is the newest arrival on the scene at this time of year.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:18 AM
ok then, we dont have an interclub competition at the moment, that might be change next year, but as it stands, we will take your second competition to help out :lol: :lol: ;) :whistle:
There is a teams competition run along the lines of the grade matches called the western Suburns premiership. In recent years Brian Jones has been the DOP. It generally runs March thru to late April/early May.
The NSWCA Grade Matches run from late May to end of July.

Trent Parker
17-11-2004, 12:21 AM
sorry to go off topic, but who are you talking about in your signature trent?

This (modified) quote is from a Rodney Rude cd :)

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 01:01 AM
This (modified) quote is from a Rodney Rude cd :)
thought you might have been taking a shot at a recent council member ;)

arosar
17-11-2004, 10:06 AM
Mr Sike -

No wonder Bill hasn't responded to my note. You've been distracting him with your demands about some newsletter with every man and his dog cc'd on it!!

Listen, what you're demanding requires resources to be devoted to it. So here's the deal: bang out some numbers and I'll see if I can buy into your idea.

In the mean time, I need Bill to respond to my note about some tourn dates. Bill, will the NSWCA teams challenge still take place around about early April or so? Our esteemed visitors cannot wait til Anzac Day w/e you see.

AR

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 11:44 AM
Mr Sike -

No wonder Bill hasn't responded to my note. You've been distracting him with your demands about some newsletter with every man and his dog cc'd on it!!

Listen, what you're demanding requires resources to be devoted to it. So here's the deal: bang out some numbers and I'll see if I can buy into your idea.

In the mean time, I need Bill to respond to my note about some tourn dates. Bill, will the NSWCA teams challenge still take place around about early April or so? Our esteemed visitors cannot wait til Anzac Day w/e you see.

AR
I responded in the other thread.

Paul S
17-11-2004, 06:39 PM
Your lack of awareness of the past is not my problem.


When held in the past the only club delegates who bothered to turn up on a regular basis were those who were on council including Charles Z who was on Council at the time. In fact if I recall correctly it was during Charles Z's stint as President that the delagate meetings were finally discontinued.
I am unaware of any plans by council to resurrect them.

I suspect that half-hearted promotion in the past by the NSWCA of these meetings is the reason that I have never previously been aware that they existed and why the turnout was poor.

Paul S
17-11-2004, 06:55 PM
How did we manipulate the polls.


I was merely using the same words as what Barry used in his accusation against me. I guess I was being a bit lazy - using "Ctrl + C" and "Ctrl = V" when replying to Barry. Yes, OK, OK, I should have used something like "What about your and Bill's selective interpretation of the opinion survey results to favour your outcome?" instead of "What about your and Bill's shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome?"


The point is that the person complaining (Paul S) is the person that organised the opinion survey in the first place.



In fact the questions asked in the opinion survey were designed by you and approved by council.
It therefore isnt our fault that you didnt phrase the questions sufficiently to get the answers you wanted.

Yes, I did the "hard yards" with the survey. However, the final product was NOT all my work!

Bill, as you will recall, during my time on NSWCA Council last year, I changed/added/deleted some questions at request of some NSWCA Council members. As you know, there were a few occasions during the year when I would email to rest of Council what I had done, then others would say change/add/delete this/that and I would do so and that this process repeated itself 4 or 5 times.

Also, when I got the Opinion Survey in January after I had left the NSWCA Council, I noticed about 20% of the wording had changed from what I had thought was "the final version" (decided on at my last Council meeting). While I don't think there was anything sinister behind it (most of the changes appeared to be minor), for whatever reasons the new (2004) Council decided to change some things after I had left NSWCA Council!



How can Brian's be more statistically significant. The opinion survey by the NSWCA went to all members.

Because Brian's survey would have a larger number of respondents!

Paul S
17-11-2004, 07:11 PM
Still the real question is, can a 30 minute variance be seriously called "nonsense". It would seem to be a minor concession to accomodate facilities availability.

Players often turn up 30 minutes late at venues that have a 7pm starting time. Also, it is difficult for a lot of players like myself to make it to far away places like Rooty Hill and Campbelltown by 7pm. (Yes Trent, I saw your post about the Campbelltown start time being changed from 7pm to 7.30pm this year - its just that about 3 years ago I had to get to Campbelltown at 7pm to play in the Grade Matches).


If Paul's nose was really put that much out of joint by it, he could just turn up 30 minutes late and take a the hit on his clock. Then he would have a 7:30 start and 90 minutes on the clock (his clock anyway). The best of both worlds.

Losing half an hour would most likely have no effect on the result of my game, as I usually make my first 40 moves in well under 1 hour.

However, I always try to make sure I am on time for the Grade Matches, because on the rare occasions when I have been late, some of my teammates have started their game but played in the wrong board order (as you know there are rules about what board order players can play in based on their ratings)!

Paul S
17-11-2004, 07:39 PM
To be brutally honest i would like to see a rethink on Club chess.

A rethink on club chess would be good! How about the NSWCA organise a club delegates meeting?


I think it is important that each club has their local open tournament that they can play in but i would like to see it planned out a bit better in order to enable people to play at other clubs open tournaments. Eg. At the moment the Fisher's Ghost open, the Canterbury Open and a tournament at Hakoah are all running on monday nights. I havent had a look to see what happens before the interclub tournaments are played, but wouldn't it be better off if each tournament was held over a different period of monday nights?

You forgot to mention Rooty Hill - they play on Monday nights also (and I think they have an Open Comp in October/November, but I am not sure)!

With Hakoah, every tournament of theirs is in reality an Open! I played in their Club Championship this year and I did not have to be a member (they had two entry fee rates for it, one for members and one for non-members).

Canterbury has always (to my knowledge) run a 7 week tournament from mid-October to early December (straight after completion of Interleagues). While it is called an "Open" (to try and attract new players to the club), in reality it is free entry for club members (and non-members pay a $10 "entry fee" which is the same as the chess club membership fee, so they end up becoming chess club members). The prizemoney is trivial (eg $420 in total this year, which is typical of past years) and comes from club funds. Hardly the typical Open tournament structure of entry fees and reasonable prize money. A few days before it started this year, the Canterbury committee decided to publicise it a bit more than previous years (eg on NSWCA website), so it probably got noticed a bit more this year by people like yourself (although numbers stayed about the same as last year - 16 players).

Even if Hakoah, Canterbury and Rooty Hill all played their chess on Tuesday nights, I doubt it would increase the Fishers Ghost tournament numbers by more than 2 players. Campbelltown is simply too far away for virtually all Hakoah, Canterbury and Rooty Hill players to travel to for a game of chess (although for someone like George Xie your tournament is appealing because he has a good chance at winning the substantial first prize - and indded has done so in the past). I can't think of one player presently playing in the Canterbury Open who would play in the Fisher's Ghost if Canterbury had its chess night on, say, Tuesday (or did not have an "Open" tournament this year).


An arguement someone might come up with (noticing that i am a campbelltown Chess club member which holds the fisher's Ghost) might be "move the fisher's Ghost". However Campbelltown City council asists us somewhat in the preparations for the fishers ghost open as it is recognised as an event of Campbelltown City's "Festival of Fisher's Ghost" which is held round about now.

Probably Peter Hanna would be silly enough to suggest your tournament be moved (much like his "move the Doeberl to Sydney"), but I doubt anyone else would suggest this.

Rincewind
17-11-2004, 08:22 PM
Players often turn up 30 minutes late at venues that have a 7pm starting time. Also, it is difficult for a lot of players like myself to make it to far away places like Rooty Hill and Campbelltown by 7pm. (Yes Trent, I saw your post about the Campbelltown start time being changed from 7pm to 7.30pm this year - its just that about 3 years ago I had to get to Campbelltown at 7pm to play in the Grade Matches).

You think Rooty Hill is a fair drive from Bankstown, you should try it from Wollongong ;)


Losing half an hour would most likely have no effect on the result of my game, as I usually make my first 40 moves in well under 1 hour.

However, I always try to make sure I am on time for the Grade Matches, because on the rare occasions when I have been late, some of my teammates have started their game but played in the wrong board order (as you know there are rules about what board order players can play in based on their ratings)!

I am aware of this but this is just a matter of the captain ensuring each player knows what board they are playing in advance. Personally, I would sorely miss that 1/2 hour but would prefer that on the odd occasion to always playing 3 hour games.

Paul S
17-11-2004, 10:40 PM
I am aware of this but this is just a matter of the captain ensuring each player knows what board they are playing in advance.

That sounds simple in theory, but you don't know how absent minded some of Canterbury's players are! :rolleyes:

Also, the composition of a team can sometimes change at short notice! For instance, occasionally a player will ring me on the day of the match to say he cannot make it on a particular night and the rating of the replacement player is such that a change in board order is required.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 10:51 PM
I suspect that half-hearted promotion in the past by the NSWCA of these meetings is the reason that I have never previously been aware that they existed and why the turnout was poor.
I suspect you dont know what you are talking about. :hand:

Paul S
17-11-2004, 10:53 PM
Listen, what you're demanding requires resources to be devoted to it. So here's the deal: bang out some numbers and I'll see if I can buy into your idea.


At the moment its in the "discussion stage" between me and NSWCA Council. They may or may not agree with my ideas and/or conditions, so it is possible that a NSWCA newsletter may be "off" before it has started!

Anyway, when I get some suitable feedback from NSWCA Council I will be in a position to give you some numbers.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 10:56 PM
I was merely using the same words as what Barry used in his accusation against me. I guess I was being a bit lazy - using "Ctrl + C" and "Ctrl = V" when replying to Barry. Yes, OK, OK, I should have used something like "What about your and Bill's selective interpretation of the opinion survey results to favour your outcome?" instead of "What about your and Bill's shameless opportunism to manipulate polls to favour your outcome?"

That a ncie try bit totally inaccurate.


Yes, I did the "hard yards" with the survey. However, the final product was NOT all my work!

Bill, as you will recall, during my time on NSWCA Council last year, I changed/added/deleted some questions at request of some NSWCA Council members. As you know, there were a few occasions during the year when I would email to rest of Council what I had done, then others would say change/add/delete this/that and I would do so and that this process repeated itself 4 or 5 times.
Thats true, but the essence of the opinion survey was your work.


Also, when I got the Opinion Survey in January after I had left the NSWCA Council, I noticed about 20% of the wording had changed from what I had thought was "the final version" (decided on at my last Council meeting). While I don't think there was anything sinister behind it (most of the changes appeared to be minor), for whatever reasons the new (2004) Council decided to change some things after I had left NSWCA Council!
In most cases it was simply a change in the wording, or adding a few more options.


Because Brian's survey would have a larger number of respondents!
There is no evidence to support that claim.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 10:57 PM
However, I always try to make sure I am on time for the Grade Matches, because on the rare occasions when I have been late, some of my teammates have started their game but played in the wrong board order (as you know there are rules about what board order players can play in based on their ratings)!
You need to educate them better.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 10:58 PM
At the moment its in the "discussion stage" between me and NSWCA Council. They may or may not agree with my ideas and/or conditions, so it is possible that a NSWCA newsletter may be "off" before it has started!

Anyway, when I get some suitable feedback from NSWCA Council I will be in a position to give you some numbers.
I doubt the council will make a formal decision until after the AGM.

Paul S
17-11-2004, 11:02 PM
I suspect you dont know what you are talking about. :hand:
I suspect I do :hand: ;)

In the years when these meetings were on (which I presume to be up till 2000) I had no idea they existed - I had never heard of such meetings! I would have thought that someone in my position at the time would have been made aware of their existence when they were on!

Paul S
17-11-2004, 11:05 PM
You need to educate them better.

See post 143!

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 11:10 PM
I suspect I do :hand: ;)

In the years when these meetings were on (which I presume to be up till 2000) I had no idea they existed - I had never heard of such meetings!
I think they ceased prior to that.


I would have thought that someone in my position at the time would have been made aware of their existence when they were on!
My understanding is the clubs were contacted just like they are for entering the grade competition.
I also think it was announced at times in Parr's magazine when it was part of the emmbership.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 11:11 PM
See post 143!
I did and I stand by my comment.

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 11:17 PM
Paul,

You need to teach your team how to arrange board orders so they are not dependant on one person doing it. This would then prevent the problems you have had happen. By the way, the inability to get the board orders right is not a reason to change the time controls in any way. Those errors would be likely to occur at any time control, if you are missing for whatever reason that maybe.

Paul S
17-11-2004, 11:33 PM
You need to teach your team how to arrange board orders so they are not dependant on one person doing it. This would then prevent the problems you have had happen.

See post 143. :D


By the way, the inability to get the board orders right is not a reason to change the time controls in any way. Those errors would be likely to occur at any time control, if you are missing for whatever reason that maybe.

Relax, Garvin. :hand:

I never suggested that this was a reason for changing the time controls. It is just a bit of thread drift, that is all!

Trent Parker
17-11-2004, 11:36 PM
Join the council Paul........ most clubs are already represented on it!

Brian_Jones
18-11-2004, 08:24 AM
The opinion survey by the NSWCA went to all members.

Are you sure about this? How many were sent out? What date did they go out? Was there a letter explaining the process? What was the deadline for return?

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 11:25 AM
Are you sure about this? How many were sent out?
My understanding is that over 400 members/ex members received them. Peter C would know the exact numbers.


What date did they go out?
I dont know for sure. Those that were sent by snail mail went prior to xmas 2003 with the membership form, the NSWCA tournament calendar, the Australia Day Weekender advert and the City of Sydney advert.
All of the above except the survey (which was accidently left off) went via email at the same time.
This was noted on the BB here earlier in the year.
The missing survey was emailed to all members with email address's towards on the 26th January.


Was there a letter explaining the process?
Yes it was at the top of the survey form.
It said:

In order to assist the NSWCA Council when making decisions affecting NSW Chess, the NSWCA has decided to do a survey of as many chess players as possible to try and get an accurate feel for what NSW chess players want. Therefore, please take the time to fill in the survey, as the more chess players who fill in (and return!) the Opinion Survey, the more valid (statistically significant) the results will be. Completed forms should be returned to NSWCA GPO Box 2418 SYDNEY 2001. Alternatively, you can hand completed forms to you chess club delegate who will forward them on to the NSWCA.



What was the deadline for return?
For those that were sent by snail mail the deadline was 31st January.
For those sent by email the deadline was the 20th February.

Brian_Jones
18-11-2004, 12:53 PM
My understanding is that over 400 members/ex members received them. Peter C would know the exact numbers. I dont know for sure. Those that were sent by snail mail went prior to xmas 2003 with the membership form, the NSWCA tournament calendar, the Australia Day Weekender advert and the City of Sydney advert. All of the above except the survey (which was accidently left off) went via email at the same time.
This was noted on the BB here earlier in the year. The missing survey was emailed to all members with email address's towards on the 26th January.

That explains why I could not remember receiving a paper version of the survey. Now I wonder how many members printed the survey and how many hit the delete key or transferred to a received folder? The second option wins hands down in my view!

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 12:56 PM
That explains why I could not remember receiving a paper version of the survey. Now I wonder how many members printed the survey and how many hit the delete key or transferred to a received folder? The second option wins hands down in my view!
Actually as far as I am aware the majority of the replies came from those that received it via email rather than snail mail.

Paul S
18-11-2004, 09:01 PM
Join the council Paul........

Thanks for the offer, but I decline, mainly because I feel that I am already doing far more than my share for chess admin (main organiser at Canterbury and Treasurer at St George), although I readily acknowledge that my chess admin commitments are far less than people like Bill Gletsos, Norm Greenwood, Peter Cassettari, Charles Zworestine etc etc.

Also, I have recently (2003) had one year on NSWCA Council (and my intention was always to be on NSWCA Council for only one year). While it was an interesting and worthwhile experience (and I got on OK with everyone there and we agreed on most things and I learnt a lot), I was in a "minority of one" more times than anyone else on Council. For example, my views on time limits for Grade Matches (see earlier in this thread), my views on discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed for NSWCA tournaments (see earlier in this thread - also I wanted a question on this in the opinion survey, but nobody else agreed with me so I was forced to withdraw this question from the survey) etc etc. While I have respect for everyone on NSWCA Council (due to their voluntary contribution to the "behind the scenes work" of NSW Chess and the long hours that some of them put in), my views on how NSW chess should be run are more closely aligned with administrators such as Charles Zworestine and Bob Keast than the present NSWCA Council.

However, I am prepared to do some work onbehalf of the NSWCA, such as my recent offer to the NSWCA (emailed to NSWCA Council members on 16/11/04) of editing/producing a quarterly newsletter for members.


........ most clubs are already represented on it!

This is incorrect. Apart from Canterbury, other medium sized clubs are not represented (or rather more precisely have a NSWCA Council member from these clubs) such as Wests, Hakoah, Liverpool and Mt Pritchard. Also "mini-clubs" such as Croatia (the Croatian Club at Punchbowl), Smithfield and Parramatta are not "represented" on NSWCA Council. Also (apart from a couple of Central Coast Clubs) no non-Sydney clubs (eg Wollongong, Goulburn, Taree etc) have a NSWCA Council member.

As I said before in this thread, the NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority - club memberships are declining and interclub tournament numbers are declining (eg look at Combined Leagues Rapidplay and Interleagues). The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance!

ursogr8
18-11-2004, 09:15 PM
The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance!


And this my friend Paul S. is where you and I may be in synch.
I have phrased the argument previously like this:
> State level admin. has limited resources, therefore
>> State level admin has to decide on priority allocation of resources.
>>> State resources allocated to running week-enders is a diversion of those resources from more important State tasks, therefore
>>>> State resources should not run many events at all. Instead they should sub-contract (i.e. outsource) most events to Clubs or promoters.

If State resources can't discipline themselves to stay out of running tournaments then ...well that is an issue for a later post.


starter

Trent Parker
18-11-2004, 09:23 PM
This is incorrect. Apart from Canterbury, other medium sized clubs are not represented (or rather more precisely have a NSWCA Council member from these clubs) such as Wests, Hakoah, Liverpool and Mt Pritchard. Also "mini-clubs" such as Croatia (the Croatian Club at Punchbowl), Smithfield and Parramatta are not "represented" on NSWCA Council.
Fair enough
:hmm: Liverpool and mount prichard appear not to be affiliated with the NSWCA,nor is smithfield or parramatta.

So yeah perhaps your right. I change my statement: Most affiliated non country clubs are represented on council


Also (apart from a couple of Central Coast Clubs) no non-Sydney clubs (eg Wollongong, Goulburn, Taree etc) have a NSWCA Council member.



And which of these would send someone to a club reps meeting? Ok perhaps woolongong. Oh and Goulburn doesn't appear to be affiliated either!!!

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 10:24 PM
Also, I have recently (2003) had one year on NSWCA Council (and my intention was always to be on NSWCA Council for only one year). While it was an interesting and worthwhile experience (and I got on OK with everyone there and we agreed on most things and I learnt a lot), I was in a "minority of one" more times than anyone else on Council. For example, my views on time limits for Grade Matches (see earlier in this thread), my views on discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed for NSWCA tournaments (see earlier in this thread - also I wanted a question on this in the opinion survey, but nobody else agreed with me so I was forced to withdraw this question from the survey) etc etc. While I have respect for everyone on NSWCA Council (due to their voluntary contribution to the "behind the scenes work" of NSW Chess and the long hours that some of them put in), my views on how NSW chess should be run are more closely aligned with administrators such as Charles Zworestine and Bob Keast than the present NSWCA Council.
The point is a number of items you disagree with occurred during their and previous presidencies and not under the council of which you were a member. Things like the stopping the club delegates meetings and discontinuing concessional discounts for entries and I dont recall either Bob or Charles Z pushing for a lowering of the grade match time limit whilst they were president.


This is incorrect. Apart from Canterbury, other medium sized clubs are not represented (or rather more precisely have a NSWCA Council member from these clubs) such as Wests, Hakoah, Liverpool and Mt Pritchard. Also "mini-clubs" such as Croatia (the Croatian Club at Punchbowl), Smithfield and Parramatta are not "represented" on NSWCA Council. Also (apart from a couple of Central Coast Clubs) no non-Sydney clubs (eg Wollongong, Goulburn, Taree etc) have a NSWCA Council member.
Well Wollongong did but he contributed nothing.
As for Parramatta I was led to believe no such club exists.
In fact as far as I am aware with the exception of possibly Wests, Canterbury and whichever club Katnic was running at various times, I dont recall any of them ever attending NSWCA club delegates meetings.


As I said before in this thread, the NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority - club memberships are declining and interclub tournament numbers are declining (eg look at Combined Leagues Rapidplay and Interleagues). The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance!
The Combined Leagues Rapidplay and the Interleagues like the Western Suburbs are not NSWCA events any more than the Canterbury Club Championship is a NSWCA event, so perhaps you should be addressing problems regarding those events to their respective organisers.

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 10:31 PM
And this my friend Paul S. is where you and I may be in synch.
I have phrased the argument previously like this:
> State level admin. has limited resources, therefore
>> State level admin has to decide on priority allocation of resources.
>>> State resources allocated to running week-enders is a diversion of those resources from more important State tasks, therefore
>>>> State resources should not run many events at all. Instead they should sub-contract (i.e. outsource) most events to Clubs or promoters.

If State resources can't discipline themselves to stay out of running tournaments then ...well that is an issue for a later post.
You have presented no good reasons why State Associations should not run events.

In fact just look at VIC where CV apparently run no events and you cannot get any sponsorship or support for events like the Vic open from CV for arffiliated clubs yet they sponsored events run by non affilates, or so you or someone else posted previously on this board.

The NSW model appears far superior to VIC's.

Paul S
18-11-2004, 11:01 PM
The point is a number of items you disagree with occurred during their and previous presidencies and not under the council of which you were a member. Things like the stopping the club delegates meetings and discontinuing concessional discounts for entries and I dont recall either Bob or Charles Z pushing for a lowering of the grade match time limit whilst they were president.

The composition of NSWCA Council has been more or less the same for several years (especially the two dominant people). So, those decisions were essentially made by the same people who were on NSWCA Council in 2003. Who was President at the time is not all that relevant - everyone knows that Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassetari have been the two dominant forces on NSWCA Council for many years. I would be surprised if there has been an issue that you and Peter both agreed on in which you have not got your way at NSWCA Council meetings over the last 10 years or so.

I sent a letter to Bob Keast in early 2002 about time limits and other aspects of the Grade Matches. Bob told me he was keen on my ideas and would raise them at the next NSWCA Council meeting. He did this, but was defeated.


Well Wollongong did but he contributed nothing.
As for Parramatta I was led to believe no such club exists.
In fact as far as I am aware with the exception of possibly Wests, Canterbury and whichever club Katnic was running at various times, I dont recall any of them ever attending NSWCA club delegates meetings.

Ha ha - do you miss Matthew? :lol: ;)

I notice Parramatta is no longer on the NSWCA's NSW Clubs Directory, so they may well have closed recently.

Who was the Canterbury delegate(s) at these meetings and when was the last one held?


The Combined Leagues Rapidplay and the Interleagues like the Western Suburbs are not NSWCA events any more than the Canterbury Club Championship is a NSWCA event, so perhaps you should be addressing problems regarding those events to their respective organisers.

The peak body of NSW Chess should be concerned about the declining numbers in NSW chess clubs and interclub tournaments. It should be taking proactive action and not be washing its hands of the matter. At the least the NSWCA should be organising a meeting of Club Delegates! The NSWCA places too much emphasis on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 06:48 AM
Well Wollongong did but he contributed nothing.

I wouldn't say Matt was representative of the members of Wollongong. It's not like we all got together and voted for him. He did it all off his own bat.

For example, I could do the same thing and say Wollongong was in favour of banning king captures (for example) when in fact, if I did a survey, the opposite would probably be found.

Brian_Jones
19-11-2004, 08:16 AM
I think you will find that Parramatta Chess Club is still alive and kicking!
C'mon guys get your ears closer to the ground!

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 09:38 AM
The composition of NSWCA Council has been more or less the same for several years (especially the two dominant people). So, those decisions were essentially made by the same people who were on NSWCA Council in 2003. Who was President at the time is not all that relevant - everyone knows that Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassetari have been the two dominant forces on NSWCA Council for many years. I would be surprised if there has been an issue that you and Peter both agreed on in which you have not got your way at NSWCA Council meetings over the last 10 years or so.
This I think just shows your lack of understanding of the past 10 years or so.
Although Peter and I might agree on a number of subjects we all disagree on others. What is also true is that although Peter C and I may have agreed on a number of subjects, many of those ideas were pushed by respective presidents whether they were Parr, Tredinnick, Safarian, Walsh, Zworestine or Keast and were also supported by the majority of the other members of the Council.



I sent a letter to Bob Keast in early 2002 about time limits and other aspects of the Grade Matches. Bob told me he was keen on my ideas and would raise them at the next NSWCA Council meeting. He did this, but was defeated.
I remember him noting you had raised them with him, but I dont recall him actively pushing for them to be adopted.



Ha ha - do you miss Matthew? :lol: ;)
No, I was just pointing out that a member of Wollongong had been on Council, so in theory could have expressed their viewpoint.


I notice Parramatta is no longer on the NSWCA's NSW Clubs Directory, so they may well have closed recently.
My understanding is that a check was done earlier in the year regarding clubs and we were informed Parramatta had closed.


Who was the Canterbury delegate(s) at these meetings and when was the last one held?
The last on held was back when Charles Z was President I believe. As for who the canterbury delaget was I dont recall. Note I didnt say a Canterbury delegate attended all previous club delegates meetings just that Canterbury had been represented at some previous ones.



The peak body of NSW Chess should be concerned about the declining numbers in NSW chess clubs and interclub tournaments.
The NSWCA is supporting its events including grade matches and additional tournaments like the NSW Teams event.


It should be taking proactive action and not be washing its hands of the matter.
The decline in numbers for non NSWCA events is the responsability of the organisers of those events.
e.g. has the organisers of the Wetern Suburbs event bothered to poll their players as to why the numbers in it have been staedily decling. I think you will find the answer to that question a big NO. Perhaps the declining numbers in the western Suburbs competition is due to the reduction in the time limit to 3hrs. :whistle:

As for the declining number of players in the Combined Leagues Rapidplay one reason would appear to be the decision to play virtual all the rounds on non club nights of the respective host club venues. I know for a fact thats why Ryde-eastwood boycotted the event this year. However I expect the combined Leagues to come back better than ever in 2005.

As for the Interlagues the running by various clubs of their own events which clash with it over the past few years is most likely a cause for the decline in its numbers.



At the least the NSWCA should be organising a meeting of Club Delegates!
There was no support by the clubs when these were previously held, so what makes you think the situation would be any different now.


The NSWCA places too much emphasis on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.
The NSWCA is an organisation of individual members not clubs. It is therefore reasonable that although club chess is important that it caters to its constituency which is individual players.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't say Matt was representative of the members of Wollongong. It's not like we all got together and voted for him. He did it all off his own bat.

For example, I could do the same thing and say Wollongong was in favour of banning king captures (for example) when in fact, if I did a survey, the opposite would probably be found.
True.
I was just pointing out that a member of Wollongong was on Council and could in theory have been representing the views of its members.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 09:41 AM
I think you will find that Parramatta Chess Club is still alive and kicking!
C'mon guys get your ears closer to the ground!
As I replied to Paul, when the NSWCA checked this out previously we were informed they had closed.

Paul S
19-11-2004, 11:41 AM
This I think just shows your lack of understanding of the past 10 years or so.
Although Peter and I might agree on a number of subjects we all disagree on others. What is also true is that although Peter C and I may have agreed on a number of subjects, many of those ideas were pushed by respective presidents whether they were Parr, Tredinnick, Safarian, Walsh, Zworestine or Keast and were also supported by the majority of the other members of the Council.


:hand: You misunderstand (or are trying to obfuscate). Over the last 10 years, how many NSWCA Council issues have you and Peter agreed on AND were defeated by the rest of Council? My guess is none.



I remember him noting you had raised them with him, but I dont recall him actively pushing for them to be adopted.

Bob told me he supported my ideas on the Grade Matches.


The last on held was back when Charles Z was President I believe. As for who the canterbury delaget was I dont recall. Note I didnt say a Canterbury delegate attended all previous club delegates meetings just that Canterbury had been represented at some previous ones.

Probably because Canterbury (and some other clubs) were not informed of them?



The NSWCA is supporting its events including grade matches and additional tournaments like the NSW Teams event.

Its always good to have an extra event such as The NSW Teams event - obviously the more chess events, the better!

However, from what I recall, the composition of teams was rather rubbery. Who are the Tamaraws? Where is the Tamaraws chess club? The St George club as I recall had some ring-ins in its two teams.

Look, while I think its great to have an extra chess event, the NSW Teams event hardly caters for weeknight club chess but in reality is just another weekender!


The decline in numbers for non NSWCA events is the responsability of the organisers of those events.
e.g. has the organisers of the Wetern Suburbs event bothered to poll their players as to why the numbers in it have been staedily decling. I think you will find the answer to that question a big NO. Perhaps the declining numbers in the western Suburbs competition is due to the reduction in the time limit to 3hrs. :whistle:

As for the declining number of players in the Combined Leagues Rapidplay one reason would appear to be the decision to play virtual all the rounds on non club nights of the respective host club venues. I know for a fact thats why Ryde-eastwood boycotted the event this year. However I expect the combined Leagues to come back better than ever in 2005.

As for the Interlagues the running by various clubs of their own events which clash with it over the past few years is most likely a cause for the decline in its numbers.

A meeting of chess club delegates co-ordinated by the NSWCA would be a good start in addressing these sorts of issues.


There was no support by the clubs when these were previously held, so what makes you think the situation would be any different now.

I suspect that there was no support in the past becasuse some clubs werenot informed of them and that the organising of these meetings was half hearted.

I am sure that I am not the only person in NSW chess who thinks a meeting of club delegates would be a good idea!


The NSWCA is an organisation of individual members not clubs. It is therefore reasonable that although club chess is important that it caters to its constituency which is individual players.

Yes, indeed it is an organistaion of individuals. All I am suggesting is that the NSWCA has been devoting too high a percentage of its time to those individuals who play weekend chess and not enough time to those individuals who play club chess.

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 11:59 AM
You have presented no good reasons why State Associations should not run events.

The NSW model appears far superior to VIC's.

Bill

This thread is throwing up examples of
> confusion on survey results
>> Clubs affiliated or not
>>> Future plans and strategy.

All symptomatic of resources being distracted to operational activities (Tournament admin.) rather than State Admin.

In Victoria, the President is able to get around to all Clubs at least 4 times per year. There is never any doubt about affiliation status nor existence.

starter

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 12:04 PM
In Victoria, the President is able to get around to all Clubs at least 4 times per year. There is never any doubt about affiliation status nor existence.

starter
except in relation to one person :doh:

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 12:13 PM
except in relation to one person :doh:

g''aa''yy

Do you mean the GURU?
No doubts about his status.

But it does raise an interesting point...can he be elected as ACF President if he is not a member of a Club affiliated with CV?

starter

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 12:34 PM
:hand: You misunderstand (or are trying to obfuscate). Over the last 10 years, how many NSWCA Council issues have you and Peter agreed on AND were defeated by the rest of Council? My guess is none.
My point was you implied we were driving all the decisions. I was pointing out that that was not the case.
As for Peter and I agreeing on issues, well perhaps thats because they were decisions that deserved supporting.


Bob told me he supported my ideas on the Grade Matches.
I can only go by my recollection, which was that he did not push them at the meeting.


Probably because Canterbury (and some other clubs) were not informed of them?
Just because you were unaware of it does not mean they were not informed.



Its always good to have an extra event such as The NSW Teams event - obviously the more chess events, the better!

However, from what I recall, the composition of teams was rather rubbery. Who are the Tamaraws? Where is the Tamaraws chess club? The St George club as I recall had some ring-ins in its two teams.
So what.
The aim was to have players play as teams. Not just teams representing clubs. As I said NSW is a organisation of members not clubs.



Look, while I think its great to have an extra chess event, the NSW Teams event hardly caters for weeknight club chess but in reality is just another weekender!
There is enough weeknight chess events as there are. Mostly being run by the respecive clubs.


A meeting of chess club delegates co-ordinated by the NSWCA would be a good start in addressing these sorts of issues.
Not if as experience shows club delegates dont attend.



I suspect that there was no support in the past becasuse some clubs werenot informed of them and that the organising of these meetings was half hearted.
I suspect you dont know what you are talking about but are just idly speculating.


I am sure that I am not the only person in NSW chess who thinks a meeting of club delegates would be a good idea!
But are you a majority.
Past experience would indicate you are not.



Yes, indeed it is an organistaion of individuals. All I am suggesting is that the NSWCA has been devoting too high a percentage of its time to those individuals who play weekend chess and not enough time to those individuals who play club chess.
I would disagree.
The NSWCA runs the major teams event in NSW, the grade matches. Its numbers far exceed any other teams event run by others.
There is however no time in the calendar to run other weeknight teams events without causing major disruptions to the clubs own events and ecvents like the Interleagues, Combined Leagues events and the Western Suburbs.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 12:42 PM
Bill

This thread is throwing up examples of
> confusion on survey results
>> Clubs affiliated or not
>>> Future plans and strategy.
There is no confusion on survey results.
The NSWCA knows exactly what clubs are affilated or not.



All symptomatic of resources being distracted to operational activities (Tournament admin.) rather than State Admin.
Rubbish.
In VIC where membership is based on clubs then perhaps allowing clubs to run yearly events but change the structure is reasonable. In NSW where membership is based on the individual player then the NSWCA is directly responsible to its members not to clubs. As such the NSWCA determines the structure of its events.


In Victoria, the President is able to get around to all Clubs at least 4 times per year. There is never any doubt about affiliation status nor existence.
There is no issue with affilation status of clubs in NSW.
In VIC where membership is based on clubs not individual members then club affiliation is important.
In NSW club affilaition has nothing to do with membership of the NSWCA but just offers those clubs certain benefits e.g. discounted rates for grade match participation.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 12:47 PM
g''aa''yy

Do you mean the GURU?
No doubts about his status.

But it does raise an interesting point...can he be elected as ACF President if he is not a member of a Club affiliated with CV?

starter
With regards to not being specifically related to him but to anyone, I would think any Executive member of the ACF would need to be recognised as a member of their state association whether that be as an individual where individual membership is recognised or as a member of an affiliated club where club membership is relevant.

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 12:58 PM
With regards to not being specifically related to him but to anyone, I would think any Executive member of the ACF would need to be recognised as a member of their state association whether that be as an individual where individual membership is recognised or as a member of an affiliated club where club membership is relevant.
so would that mean that if a person was not a member of a club ie CV club structure or individually a member of a state (NSW) at the time of application, they would be ineligible to contest an executive position?

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 12:59 PM
With regards to not being specifically related to him but to anyone, I would think any Executive member of the ACF would need to be recognised as a member of their state association whether that be as an individual where individual membership is recognised or as a member of an affiliated club where club membership is relevant.

Nice to know what you think, Bill.

My expectation is that the National Conference will have to be a bit more certain than 'thinks'.

There seems to be a third avenue for the GURU, besides the two that you have mentioned.He could be a member of a State Executive (after the elections tomorrow night). Does this count?
Or does he need to bring forward plans to create an affiliated Club in Ormond. (But, of course this only would make him a member of a provisionally-affiliated Club, without voting rights; and that may not count :hmm: ).

starter

Ian Rout
19-11-2004, 01:16 PM
With regards to not being specifically related to him but to anyone, I would think any Executive member of the ACF would need to be recognised as a member of their state association whether that be as an individual where individual membership is recognised or as a member of an affiliated club where club membership is relevant.
If this is the case it would allow somebody with the support of 22 delegates to be effectively vetoed by a State with one delegate, by (as applicable) expelling or not accepting that person or their club as a State member or their club not being affiliated. This makes the ability of a State with seven delegates to veto a Constitution amendment look trivial by comparison.

On a quick scan I can't see any qualifications in the Constitution but it may be somewhere I didn't look, or in the broader corporations law.

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 01:28 PM
On a quick scan I can't see any qualifications in the Constitution but it may be somewhere I didn't look, or in the broader corporations law.
I had a bit more of a look at the constitution and was unable to see where it actually says something to the effect of:

To run for an executive position you must pass the following criteria:

1) Insert criteria here etc


Maybe I just dont see it and it is mentioned in different form. I think being a member of your state association should be the number one criteria. :doh:

Ian Rout
19-11-2004, 01:42 PM
I think being a member of your state association should be the number one criteria. :doh:
For reasons mentioned above I disagree with that.

Being a member of your state association should be the number one criterion for being State President.

Barry will tell you in a separate post that criteria is a plural.

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 01:51 PM
Barry will tell you in a separate post that criteria is a plural.

Really? I though criteria was singular and criteriae was plural. ;)

No prizes for linking to a message of mine which uses "criterion". I'm being facetious.

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 01:54 PM
Really? I though criteria was singular and criteriae was plural. ;)

No prizes for linking to a message of mine which uses "criterion". I'm being facetious.
can you please split the thread at post 174?

Trent Parker
19-11-2004, 01:56 PM
ROTFL! ROTFL! ROTFL!

Could this be the death of people nitpicking on spelling/grammatical mistakes?????? lol

arosar
19-11-2004, 02:00 PM
Could this be the death of people nitpicking on spelling/grammatical mistakes?????? lol

How about the death of people nitpicking over thread drift? Soooo bloody annoying.

AR

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 02:05 PM
How about the death of people nitpicking over thread drift? Soooo bloody annoying.

How about the death of people proclaiming the death of their pet hate which says more about their own inabilities rather than anything which is genuinely detestable?

Trent Parker
19-11-2004, 02:13 PM
OK OK OK
Enough of that. I wish i hadn't have commented. sheesh. BTW if you hadn't have noticed i was laughing. it was only a joke....

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 02:21 PM
OK OK OK
Enough of that. I wish i hadn't have commented. sheesh. BTW if you hadn't have noticed i was laughing. it was only a joke....

Yeah, yeah. I left the emoticon off my post as I thought it would be superfluous. Perhaps I should add a ;) to my signature line.

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 02:42 PM
Yeah, yeah. I left the emoticon off my post as I thought it would be superfluous. Perhaps I should add a ;) to my signature line.
as a moderator, is there a reason why you have not split the thread?

arosar
19-11-2004, 04:10 PM
as a moderator, is there a reason why you have not split the thread?

Well duh! Cos maybe, as a moderator he sees no reason to?

I got a better question: other than asking silly questions, as a toad, is there a reason for you to be in a Welsher thread?

AR

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 04:20 PM
as a moderator, is there a reason why you have not split the thread?

Doesn't seem to be much to discuss. But if people want to start there is now a thread for it (which you initiated).

Paul S
19-11-2004, 04:42 PM
My point was you implied we were driving all the decisions. I was pointing out that that was not the case.
As for Peter and I agreeing on issues, well perhaps thats because they were decisions that deserved supporting.


You would make a good politician, Bill!

Once again I ask the question, how many NSWCA decisions have been made over the past 10 years that both you and Peter have agreed with AND have been rejected by a majority of NSWCA Council?

Just answer the question and stop obfuscating!

Also, FWIW I am not having a go at you and Peter, as I am conscious of the efforts that both of you put into chess admin. I saw Peter "in action" last year taking on a huge workload, effectively being NSWCA Registrar, Tournaments Officer and Communications Officer! I know that apart from being NSWCA President, you are ACF Ratings Officer (and I think you are doing an excellent job in this role) and main organiser at Ryde-Eastwood. In short, I appreciate the efforts of those whose contribution to chess admin is FAR greater than mine!


I can only go by my recollection, which was that he did not push them at the meeting.

Maybe he didn't push them as much as I had thought, but he supported my ideas, nonetheless.


Just because you were unaware of it does not mean they were not informed.

Maybe. Maybe not.


So what.
The aim was to have players play as teams. Not just teams representing clubs. As I said NSW is a organisation of members not clubs.


Fair enough. Its just that this appears to contradict your earlier post where you suggested that this was an example of the NSWCA supporting the chess club scene.



There is enough weeknight chess events as there are. Mostly being run by the respecive clubs.

Maybe so. However, what do you find so WRONG about the NSWCA convening a meeting of chess clubs? After all, there is a position of Club Liason Officer on NSWCA Council!


Not if as experience shows club delegates dont attend.


I would attend (and if I couldn't make it on the night I would make sure someone from Canterbury would be there).


I suspect you dont know what you are talking about but are just idly speculating.

All I can say is that I was never made aware of these meetings when they were on and that I would have expected that someone in my position at the time would have been aware of their existence.


I suspect you dont know what you are talking about but are just idly speculating.


I suspect not.


But are you a majority.
Past experience would indicate you are not.

I think I am.

Why don't you ask club organisers?


I would disagree.
The NSWCA runs the major teams event in NSW, the grade matches. Its numbers far exceed any other teams event run by others.
There is however no time in the calendar to run other weeknight teams events without causing major disruptions to the clubs own events and ecvents like the Interleagues, Combined Leagues events and the Western Suburbs.

Stop obfuscating. All I am reccommendng is that the NSWCA convene a meeting of NSW Chess Clubs to convene a meeting of them where we can:
1) Discuss problems affecting NSW club chess.
2) Come up with solutions.
3) Implement an action plan.

The NSWCA apparently is interested in liaising with clubs, as there is a position of Club Liason Officer on NSWCA Council. Well, then, how about the NSWCA Council start liaising with NSW Chess Clubs?

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 05:06 PM
Doesn't seem to be much to discuss. But if people want to start there is now a thread for it (which you initiated).
there was already a discussion starting on it, so i thought it would be easier to just move the first few posts on it. Would seem smarter to move things earlier when it is easy to move them than wait until there is 20 or so posts and alot of work to do.

Sorry for trying to make your job easier, wont happen again. :(

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 05:07 PM
Well duh! Cos maybe, as a moderator he sees no reason to?

I got a better question: other than asking silly questions, as a toad, is there a reason for you to be in a Welsher thread?

AR
stick your opinion up your ass arosar.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 10:33 PM
If this is the case it would allow somebody with the support of 22 delegates to be effectively vetoed by a State with one delegate, by (as applicable) expelling or not accepting that person or their club as a State member or their club not being affiliated. This makes the ability of a State with seven delegates to veto a Constitution amendment look trivial by comparison.
I could see that overcome as follows.
Where a person is refused membership by their state association then that person could still be eligible provided that a majority of deleagtes at an ACF National Conference decided to accept them.


On a quick scan I can't see any qualifications in the Constitution but it may be somewhere I didn't look, or in the broader corporations law.
In NSW Incorportaed bodies are covered by the "model rules" part of the Act which take effect unless explicitly overridden by the Constitution of the incorporated body. In the model rules it notes that a casual vacancy exists in the committee (in NSWCA case Council) if a) the committee member ceases to be a member of the Association.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 11:23 PM
You would make a good politician, Bill!

Once again I ask the question, how many NSWCA decisions have been made over the past 10 years that both you and Peter have agreed with AND have been rejected by a majority of NSWCA Council?

Just answer the question and stop obfuscating!
You keep missing the point.
You may as well ask how many NSWCA decisions did we vote the same as Parr when he was president, or when Charles Z, Bob Keast and other aforementioned were president. The answer probably would be virtually all of them.
The point is Peter C and I only have one vote each. It would be ludicrous to suggest that we would vote to support someone just because they were the president any more than it would be silly for the council members to blindly follow our lead.
The council members vote as they see fit.


Also, FWIW I am not having a go at you and Peter, as I am conscious of the efforts that both of you put into chess admin. I saw Peter "in action" last year taking on a huge workload, effectively being NSWCA Registrar, Tournaments Officer and Communications Officer! I know that apart from being NSWCA President, you are ACF Ratings Officer (and I think you are doing an excellent job in this role) and main organiser at Ryde-Eastwood. In short, I appreciate the efforts of those whose contribution to chess admin is FAR greater than mine!
You can have a go at us if you like.
Its just the Council believes your view on time controls for grade matches is in the minority.


Maybe he didn't push them as much as I had thought, but he supported my ideas, nonetheless.
Well lets say he tabled them and leave it at that.


Fair enough. Its just that this appears to contradict your earlier post where you suggested that this was an example of the NSWCA supporting the chess club scene.
It does both.
It allows those that want to play as part of a club team to do so and those that want to play as part of an ad-hoc team do that. It allows flexability and member choice.


Maybe so. However, what do you find so WRONG about the NSWCA convening a meeting of chess clubs? After all, there is a position of Club Liason Officer on NSWCA Council!
I just stating what has been the view of the council and historical fact.
Previous club delegate meeting were poorly attended.


I would attend (and if I couldn't make it on the night I would make sure someone from Canterbury would be there).
Perhaps so, but previous experience shows other clubs were not so inclined.


All I can say is that I was never made aware of these meetings when they were on and that I would have expected that someone in my position at the time would have been aware of their existence.
It is not for me to speculate why you may not have known, all I would suggest is that someone at Canterbury would have been contacted.

Paul S
20-11-2004, 04:09 PM
You keep missing the point.
You may as well ask how many NSWCA decisions did we vote the same as Parr when he was president, or when Charles Z, Bob Keast and other aforementioned were president. The answer probably would be virtually all of them.
The point is Peter C and I only have one vote each. It would be ludicrous to suggest that we would vote to support someone just because they were the president any more than it would be silly for the council members to blindly follow our lead.
The council members vote as they see fit.


Just look at post 165 and answer the question in posts 171 and 193. Otherwise, don't waste my time!



You can have a go at us if you like.


I'll keep that in mind! ;) :P



Its just the Council believes your view on time controls for grade matches is in the minority.

I am aware of that!



Well lets say he tabled them and leave it at that.

OK!


It does both.
It allows those that want to play as part of a club team to do so and those that want to play as part of an ad-hoc team do that. It allows flexability and member choice.

Maybe this was the original intention, and well and good (and overall, an extra chess event is a good thing!)!

However, this is essentially another competition for weekend players, and does not add any benefit for weeknight club chess players! For example, St George (one of the "established clubs") fielded two sides, and from my records (I am the St George Treasurer), only one of those players who played in this event for St George is a 2004 St George member (ie has paid their 2004 St George membership fee)! I am sure the situation is the same for other "established clubs" that participated in this event.

Having said that though, the NSW Teams Championship is an extra chess event on the calendar (the more chess events the better), so overall this event is a good thing!



I just stating what has been the view of the council and historical fact.
Previous club delegate meeting were poorly attended.

Perhaps so, but previous experience shows other clubs were not so inclined.

It is not for me to speculate why you may not have known, all I would suggest is that someone at Canterbury would have been contacted.

I don't want to get bogged down in the past. All I will say is that the Sydney chess club scene presently has some serious issues that need to be addressed and the first constructive step forward is for the NSWCA to arrange and organise a meeting of chess club delegates in the near future!

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 04:20 PM
Just look at post 165 and answer the question in posts 171 and 193. Otherwise, don't waste my time!
Just because you didnt like my answer is not my problem.
So you can stop wasting my time.



Maybe this was the original intention, and well and good (and overall, an extra chess event is a good thing!)!

However, this is essentially another competition for weekend players, and does not add any benefit for weeknight club chess players!
There are enough weeknight competitions run by various chess clubs already.
There is no need for the NSWCA to run more.


For example, St George (one of the "established clubs") fielded two sides, and from my records (I am the St George Treasurer), only one of those players who played in this event is a 2004 St George member (ie has paid their 2004 St George membership fee)! I am sure the situation is the same for other "established clubs".
So what. As I said the NSW Teams event was designed for flexability with teams being either "club" teams or ad-hoc teams.


I don't want to get bogged down in the past. All I will say is that the Sydney chess club scene presently has some serious issues that need to be addressed and the first constructive step forward is for the NSWCA to arrange and organise a meeting of chess club delegates in the near future!
Your saying there is a problem does not make it so.
The NSWCA has received no complaints from clubs concerning the NSWCA Grade Matches.

As for any problems with the Western Suburbs, Combined Leagues Rapidplay or InterLeagues competitions that is their organsiers problems and not the NSWCA's problem.

Paul S
20-11-2004, 04:35 PM
Just because you didnt like my answer is not my problem.
So you can stop wasting my time.

I don't think you answered my question at all!!! Anyway, you say you have given an answer, so (as I know I won't get anywhere by pursuing this matter further), I will leave it at that!


There are enough weeknight competitions run by various chess clubs already.
There is no need for the NSWCA to run more.

You misunderstand. I never said the NSWCA should run more weeknight competitions. Where did I say that the NSWCA should run more weeknight competitions?


So what. As I said the NSW Teams event was designed for flexability with teams being either "club" teams or ad-hoc teams.

As I said before, an extra chess tournament is a good thing!

However, you implied in an earlier post that this event benefitted the club chess scene when in reality it is just another weekend tournament catering for weekend chess players!


Your saying there is a problem does not make it so.
The NSWCA has received no complaints from clubs concerning the NSWCA Grade Matches.

I wasn't referring to the Grade Matches. I was referring to the club scene generally.


As for any problems with the Western Suburbs, Combined Leagues Rapidplay or InterLeagues competitions that is their organsiers problems and not the NSWCA's problem.

As I said before in this thread, the NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority - club memberships are declining and interclub tournament numbers are declining (eg look at Combined Leagues Rapidplay and Interleagues). The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance! The NSWCA needs to see the bigger picture of NSW Chess and NOT just focus solely on its own events! The NSWCA is the peak body for NSW chess!!!

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 05:01 PM
You misunderstand. I never said the NSWCA should run more weeknight competitions. Where did I say that the NSWCA should run more weeknight competitions?
You implied it.
You said that the NSWCA shouild focus on more club events. However you then criticised the NSW Teams event as not a club event but just an event for weekend players.
This therefore implied that any more NSWCA club events would need to be run on weeknights.



As I said before, an extra chess tournament is a good thing!

However, you implied in an earlier post that this event benefitted the club chess scene when in reality it is just another weekend tournament catering for weekend chess players!
It is a club competition catering to club players as well as others. The fact that they are also weekend players is irrelevant.


As I said before in this thread, the NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority - club memberships are declining and interclub tournament numbers are declining (eg look at Combined Leagues Rapidplay and Interleagues).
And as I said they are not NSWCA events.



The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.
The NSWCA is an association of individual members not clubs.
That said the NSWCA runs a club event. Its called the NSWCA Grade Matches. It is still the largest club event held in the state.


There needs to be some balance! The NSWCA needs to see the bigger picture of NSW Chess and NOT just focus solely on its own events! The NSWCA is the peak body for NSW chess!!!
The NSWCA focuses on events for its members. Its members are individuals, not clubs.

Paul S
20-11-2004, 11:57 PM
You implied it.
You said that the NSWCA shouild focus on more club events.

You have a funny way of interpreting and construing things!


However you then criticised the NSW Teams event as not a club event but just an event for weekend players.

The NSW Teams event IS an event for weekend players, regardless of what spin you put on it!


This therefore implied that any more NSWCA club events would need to be run on weeknights.

You have a funny way of interpreting and construing things!

I made no mention of the NSWCA running more club tournaments! All I was saying is that the NSWCA places too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.

You apparently see the main focus of the NSWCA is to run tournaments, especially weekenders. Personally I think the NSWCA should focus more on administrative/oraganisation issues than on tournaments (lest you again misconstrue things, this does NOT mean that I advocate getting rid of all NSWCA run tournaments!).


It is a club competition catering to club players as well as others. The fact that they are also weekend players is irrelevant.


The NSW Teams event IS an event for weekend players, regardless of what spin you put on it!


And as I said they are not NSWCA events.


The NSWCA needs to see the bigger picture of NSW Chess and NOT just focus solely on its own events! The NSWCA is the peak body for NSW chess!!!


The NSWCA is an association of individual members not clubs.

The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance! The NSWCA should not favour one part of its membership (weekend players) over an equally important part of its membership (club players)!


That said the NSWCA runs a club event. Its called the NSWCA Grade Matches. It is still the largest club event held in the state.


Stop obfuscating and address the real issues. The NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority. Just do it instead of being like Emperor Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns!


The NSWCA focuses on events for its members. Its members are individuals, not clubs.

The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance!

Brian_Jones
21-11-2004, 09:05 AM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]The NSWCA has received no complaints from clubs concerning the NSWCA Grade Matches.QUOTE]

Yes you have Bill - Koala Chess Club does not like the current slow time limits for the NSW Grade Matches!

Also, as I will be unable to attend the AGM next weekend, here are a few other items for consideration:

1. NSWCA runs too many city weekenders. Better to have a few high quality events than so many average uninspiring events.

2. The NSW Teams Challenge should be continued.

3. The State Championship should be run over one long weekend not 9 or 11.

4. NSWCA should do more to support country chess.

5. NSWCA President Bill Gletsos should listen more and talk less!

Paul S
21-11-2004, 11:03 AM
5. NSWCA President Bill Gletsos should listen more and talk less!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 11:56 AM
Yes you have Bill - Koala Chess Club does not like the current slow time limits for the NSW Grade Matches!
This BB is not an official communication medium.
I dont recall the NSWCA receiving any communication from Koala regarding this.


Also, as I will be unable to attend the AGM next weekend, here are a few other items for consideration:

1. NSWCA runs too many city weekenders. Better to have a few high quality events than so many average uninspiring events.
There is no evidence members would want this.


2. The NSW Teams Challenge should be continued.
It will be.


3. The State Championship should be run over one long weekend not 9 or 11.
As has been said previously there was no support for this in the members survey.


4. NSWCA should do more to support country chess.
I wouldnt disagree with that.



5. NSWCA President Bill Gletsos should listen more and talk less!
I listen too everyone. I'm one of the very few state reps who regularly post and respond here. Perhaps I should follow the example of VIC or QLD.

I'm just voicing what I believe to be the view of the Council on the various issues.

The point is what makes your opinion any more valid than say Peter Parr's or Paul Sikes opinion any more valid than Peter Cassettari's.

Paul S
21-11-2004, 12:26 PM
The point is what makes your opinion any more valid than say Peter Parr's or Paul Sikes opinion any more valid than Peter Cassettari's.

Me and Peter Cassettari agree on a lot of chess issues. The only times Peter is wrong is when he disagrees with me. ;) As Peter is correct when he agrees with me and wrong when he disagrees with me, my opinion should therefore be more valid than Peter's. ;) :P :lol:

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 12:31 PM
You have a funny way of interpreting and construing things!

I made no mention of the NSWCA running more club tournaments! All I was saying is that the NSWCA places too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.

You apparently see the main focus of the NSWCA is to run tournaments, especially weekenders. Personally I think the NSWCA should focus more on administrative/oraganisation issues than on tournaments (lest you again misconstrue things, this does NOT mean that I advocate getting rid of all NSWCA run tournaments!).
I dont believe the NSWCA should be dictating to clubs or individual organisers how they do things. It is not for the NSWCA to organise/administer the workings of clubs.
Therefore instead of just criticising what do you believe the NSWCA should be doing with regards club chess other than Grade Matches.



The NSW Teams event IS an event for weekend players, regardless of what spin you put on it!
Its a team event for club and ad-hoc players no matter what spin you put on it.



The NSWCA needs to see the bigger picture of NSW Chess and NOT just focus solely on its own events! The NSWCA is the peak body for NSW chess!!!
The NSWCA should not be dictating to others how they run their non NSWCA events.


The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance! The NSWCA should not favour one part of its membership (weekend players) over an equally important part of its membership (club players)!
This makes no sense.
Above you are saying we should not run more club events yet now you say we run too many weekenders.
The running of weekenders does would not appear to detract from club chess during the week because you claim they cater to two different groups of players.
What exactly would you have the NSWCA do about club chess other than Grade Matches.





Stop obfuscating and address the real issues. The NSWCA needs to organise and co-ordinate a meeting of club delegates as a matter of priority. Just do it instead of being like Emperor Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns!
You have said above you dont want us to run more club events.
So other than possibly discussing Grade matches what exactly would you expect the club delegates meeting to achieve.
Certainly based on your comments not more NSWCA club events.


The NSWCA has far too much focus on weekend chess at the expense of club chess. There needs to be some balance!
You are sounding like a broken record.
Your saying something does not make it so.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 12:31 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
If thats your attitude I may as well just ignore you in future.

Paul S
21-11-2004, 12:56 PM
I dont believe the NSWCA should be dictating to clubs or individual organisers how they do things. It is not for the NSWCA to organise/administer the workings of clubs.

I never said it should be.


Therefore instead of just criticising what do you believe the NSWCA should be doing with regards club chess other than Grade Matches.

As I have said before, the NSWCA should convene a meeting of Sydney chess club delegates as a start. Such a meeting would address issues such as:
1) Declining chess club numbers and what can be done about it.
2) Ways in which the NSWCA can assist club chess.
3) Advantages/disadvantages of rescheduling of some tournaments.
4) Ways to attract more people to play in interclub chess competitions (note that Grade Matches is an interclub competition!).

Just stop being obstructionist and get this first step happening!


Its a team event for club and ad-hoc players no matter what spin you put on it.

Its another event for weekend chess players no matter what spin you put on it.


The NSWCA should not be dictating to others how they run their non NSWCA events.

I agree


This makes no sense.
Above you are saying we should not run more club events yet now you say we run too many weekenders.
The running of weekenders does would not appear to detract from club chess during the week because you claim they cater to two different groups of players.

I am saying that the NSWCA foucuses too much on weekend chess at the expense of club chess.

I am suggesting that the NSWCA focus a bit more on the administrative side of chess and less on running tournaments. Perhaps a little like Starter says they do things at Chess Victoria (although I don't advocate going totally the way of the Vics). Heck, you may even be able to see the forest (overall picture of NSW chess) instead of just trees (NSWCA weekend tournaments) if you did this!


What exactly would you have the NSWCA do about club chess other than Grade Matches.

I covered this earlier in this post.



You have said above you dont want us to run more club events.
So other than possibly discussing Grade matches what exactly would you expect the club delegates meeting to achieve.
Certainly based on your comments not more NSWCA club events.

I covered this earlier in this post.


You are sounding like a broken record.

So are you!


Your saying something does not make it so.

I never expected it to (although it would be nice if it did!)! But at least I get my point of view across!

Garvinator
21-11-2004, 12:59 PM
You are both sounding like a broken record :hand: :hand:

Paul,

You are a member of NSWCA, why dont you organise a club delegate meeting with NSWCA council approval?
Usually a person who believes that a meeting needs to take place is more likely to get ppl to a meeting than a council who may not believe there is any need for a meeting but is just going through the motions(not saying NSWCA council would be just going through the motions).

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 01:10 PM
3) Advantages/disadvantages of rescheduling of some tournaments.
Why would the clubs listen.
After all it would appear that the Canterbury Open which is only recently new to the calendar, clashes with the long established Fishers Ghost on Mondays as well as a Hakoah event and overlaps with the long running Ford Memorial which is held on Tuesdays.
Why didnt Canterbuty pick a different time of year.
Probably because any other time would not have fitted into their claendar of events or would have clashed with other clubs events.

There are only so many weeks in the year for weeknight(club) chess to be played. Events will naturally clash and overlap. It is inevitable.

BTW when will the Canterbury Open finish and therefore submitted for rating.

Paul S
21-11-2004, 01:20 PM
You are both sounding like a broken record :hand: :hand:

I agree!

If Bill would not obfuscate so much I would not need to repeat myself so much!


Paul,

You are a member of NSWCA, why dont you organise a club delegate meeting with NSWCA council approval?
Usually a person who believes that a meeting needs to take place is more likely to get ppl to a meeting than a council who may not believe there is any need for a meeting but is just going through the motions(not saying NSWCA council would be just going through the motions).

Going by the NSWCA President's reaction, there seems little chance of NSWCA Council approval for a club delegates meeting.

If the NSWCA Council (peak body of NSW chess) is not interested in the concept of a club delegates meeting then I see little point in having it.

Theoretically I could organise it myself (ie without the NSWCA), but there are some limitations:
1) Paul S organising a meeting has limited influence/authority/appeal as compared to the NSWCA organising/convening it.
2) Due to limited function room facilities at Canterbury Leagues, the only night I could book a room for such a meeting would be on a Thursday (which I suspect would be inconvenient for a fair number of delegates due to Thursday Nights being late night shopping night).

The NSWCA has a position of Club Liaison Officer, so is apparently interested in liaising with clubs. So, the NSWCA should liaise with its clubs and convene/organise a meeting of chess clubs!

Paul S
21-11-2004, 01:34 PM
Why would the clubs listen.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

We won't know unless you give such a meeting a try!



After all it would appear that the Canterbury Open which is only recently new to the calendar, clashes with the long established Fishers Ghost on Mondays as well as a Hakoah event and overlaps with the long running Ford Memorial which is held on Tuesdays.
Why didnt Canterbuty pick a different time of year.
Probably because any other time would not have fitted into their claendar of events or would have clashed with other clubs events.

Go see post number 141 in this thread.

Also, take a look at a street directory and see how far Belmore is from Campbelltown (and Bondi and Rooty Hill for that matter)!


There are only so many weeks in the year for weeknight(club) chess to be played. Events will naturally clash and overlap. It is inevitable.

I agree.

However, by having a meeting of chess clubs we could:
1) Determine how much of a problem it is.
2) Do something about it in some cases.


BTW when will the Canterbury Open finish and therefore submitted for rating.

It finishes on 29/11/04.

Therefore, I could submit the results on 30/11/04. Is this too late for the December ratings?

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 02:15 PM
It finishes on 29/11/04.

Therefore, I could submit the results on 30/11/04. Is this too late for the December ratings?
Provided you ship them ASAP on the 30/11 then it should be ok provided there are no problems with the SP files.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 02:51 PM
Going by the NSWCA President's reaction, there seems little chance of NSWCA Council approval for a club delegates meeting.
I'm just stating what I believe is the view of the council which was to discontinue club delegate meetings due to lack of interest by the clubs.


If the NSWCA Council (peak body of NSW chess) is not interested in the concept of a club delegates meeting then I see little point in having it.
Over the past 10-12 years the function of the club delegates meeting has been to discuss the Grade Matches.
It is not and has never been the function of those metings to dictate to clubs how they handle their own events or calenders.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 02:56 PM
Also, take a look at a street directory and see how far Belmore is from Campbelltown (and Bondi and Rooty Hill for that matter)!
That argument is no different that antichrists that running the SEC is catering for those that dont want to travel to Canberra.

Most players who do not play on the weekend only play chess once a week.
Hence multiple events being run even on different weeknights is relevant to the reduction in player numbers.


However, by having a meeting of chess clubs we could:
1) Determine how much of a problem it is.
2) Do something about it in some cases.
I believe the Councils view is that it is not a major problem and that little can be done about it.

Garvinator
21-11-2004, 03:03 PM
I believe the Councils view is that it is not a major problem and that little can be done about it.
so i take it from this then that if Paul was to organise a club's meeting and report those results to nswca council, the nswca council would most likely support this concept and endorse the meeting.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 03:11 PM
so i take it from this then that if Paul was to organise a club's meeting and report those results to nswca council, the nswca council would most likely support this concept and endorse the meeting.
He is talking about getting clubs to consider changing their calendars so as not clash events.
Therefore its a matter for the individual clubs, that would have nothing to do with the NSWCA and require no endorsement.

Garvinator
21-11-2004, 03:25 PM
He is talking about getting clubs to consider changing their calendars so as not clash events.
Therefore its a matter for the individual clubs, that would have nothing to do with the NSWCA and require no endorsement.
i thought Paul wanted the meeting firstly regarding grade match time controls :uhoh: or maybe i have just thought that thinking that a club meeting might be a good time to bring the issue up as you might have quite a few ppl in important positions at that meeting ;) :cool:

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 03:33 PM
i thought Paul wanted the meeting firstly regarding grade match time controls :uhoh: or maybe i have just thought that thinking that a club meeting might be a good time to bring the issue up as you might have quite a few ppl in important positions at that meeting ;) :cool:
Why would a club with maybe 10 members who say voted for 3 hrs be equal to a club with 50 players and preferring 4 hrs.
Also club votes dont show how split the members of a club maybe. A club may favour 4 hrs over 3 hrs by 10-5 whilct another favour 3 hrs by 25-5. On club votes this is one vote a piece.

An the opinion survey available to all members is better.

ursogr8
21-11-2004, 03:36 PM
He is talking about getting clubs to consider changing their calendars so as not clash events.
Therefore its a matter for the individual clubs, that would have nothing to do with the NSWCA and require no endorsement.

One of the benefits of affiliation with Chess Victoria is that the Prez maintains a huge calendar of all events, holidays, and significant dates. This is used around this time of the year to co-ordinate all affiliated club activities. For example, Box Hill schedules an alternate night for those who wish to go to the Begonia tournament. (I think from memory 35 Box Hill drove to Ballarat either last year or the one previous).

The calendar is in software, and a hard-copy print is given to all delegates who attended the AGM last night. It is a thing of beauty.
The State Association sees it as their obligation to facilitate all the co-ordination.


starter

ps A copy could be made avaialble to you, Bill?

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 04:35 PM
One of the benefits of affiliation with Chess Victoria is that the Prez maintains a huge calendar of all events, holidays, and significant dates. This is used around this time of the year to co-ordinate all affiliated club activities. For example, Box Hill schedules an alternate night for those who wish to go to the Begonia tournament. (I think from memory 35 Box Hill drove to Ballarat either last year or the one previous).

The calendar is in software, and a hard-copy print is given to all delegates who attended the AGM last night. It is a thing of beauty.
The State Association sees it as their obligation to facilitate all the co-ordination.


starter

ps A copy could be made avaialble to you, Bill?
The NSWCA publishes a calendar and posts it to all members shortly after the AGM at the end of the year. It is maintained and updated on the NSWCA web site. The calendar contains all events reported to the NSWAC for inclusion including most clubs events open to non club members.

Paul S
21-11-2004, 04:51 PM
Over the past 10-12 years the function of the club delegates meeting has been to discuss the Grade Matches.



i thought Paul wanted the meeting firstly regarding grade match time controls :uhoh: or maybe i have just thought that thinking that a club meeting might be a good time to bring the issue up as you might have quite a few ppl in important positions at that meeting ;) :cool:

My idea was to have a meeting of chess club delegates where we could discuss ALL pertinent issues to club chess. The 3 hours versus 4 hours Grade Matches time controls would be just a very small part of such a meeting.

I would envisage the main topics would be things like how to boost club membership numbers, ways to make club chess more appealing, getting more players involved in interclub chess, co-operation between clubs etc etc.

Well, I think such a meeting would be beneficial for NSW club chess, but it seems the NSWCA Council disagrees.

Paul S
21-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Provided you ship them ASAP on the 30/11 then it should be ok provided there are no problems with the SP files.

Thanks Bill.

I'll email them to you on 30/11/04.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 10:14 AM
Even though you are in favour of it you are well aware this isnt supported by a majority of the members.
Of the 46 who answered the question in the members survey 25 wanted 4 hr sessions and 21 wanted 3 hrs. In fact only 5 out of 41 replies cited the time limits being too long as a concern.No mandate. It is a comunity divided.



One shouldnt necessarily judge the past as criteria for determing future actions. [/qoute] so why don't you apply this to ratings. It is called extrapolation.
[quote]If the ACF runs a GP then I believe its important fopr NSW to support it. A case of "My ACF right or wrong."



This was rejected a number of years back.
I dont see it happening. said the Fuhrer



Personally I'd like to see more mailouts of our tournament info on top of our email notifications.
However I wouldnt be in favour of increasing the membership fees to do it. Disemination of info is more important than increasing the coffers from $80.0k to $80.5k

PHAT
22-11-2004, 10:31 AM
However the Council does not see the benefit of a newsletter, especially given the lack of anyone prepared to produce it.


?? "especially" ?? How does the lack of an editor make the benefit of a news letter greater or smaller.

I think you can only see a benefit if someone else is willing to take the risk. This is just like your position on a Sydney Chess Centre.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 10:37 AM
Surely if your [PS] position was credible, an opinion poll would reflect (not contradict) it.

Seems reality is not your stong suit.

Surely if your position was credible then we need not have full elections - an opinion pole would reflect the result.

Seems consistancy is not your strong suit.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 10:43 AM
?? "especially" ?? How does the lack of an editor make the benefit of a news letter greater or smaller.
The point was without an editor, the newsletter would not be adequately done as the other council members have other responsabilities. As such we didnt see that as beneficial.
Of course it should be remembered that at a previous AGM there was no support for a newletter. The members preferred instead to have a straight membership fee with them able to individually and optionally subscribe to Australian Chess Forum.


?? I think you can only see a benefit if someone else is willing to take the risk. This is just like your position on a Sydney Chess Centre.
As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.
Perhaps if you had organised and attended Sydney Chess Centre Committee meetings as you promised then you might actually have a clue.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 10:50 AM
That reminds me of something. If the time limits for the Grade Matches were shorter, then "remote" (ie non-central) clubs like Campbelltown, Koala and Hakoah would be more likely to play (or in Campbelltown's case field more teams) in the Grade Matches.


And Wollongong! we have a 150km round trip !!! But hey, if you are not a part of the metro mob, you don't count in NSW.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:02 AM
Those that wanted to respond obviously did. those that didnt were either too apathetic or happy with the status quo. you deliberately forgot the other posibility: to disenfranchised to think that thieir opinion would be listened to.



The results of the opinion survey were for the benefit of council ... There was never any plan by council to publish them.

It does not matter if there was or was not a "plan" to release. There is a tacit understanding that the results of such surveys are relaesed to the membership. Not to do so smacks of corruption to due process.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 11:09 AM
you deliberately forgot the other posibility: to disenfranchised to think that thieir opinion would be listened to.
I didnt deliberately forget anything.
The council gave the members the opportunity to fill iin the Survey.
it is not the councils fault if members chose not to do so.



It does not matter if there was or was not a "plan" to release. There is a tacit understanding that the results of such surveys are relaesed to the membership. Not to do so smacks of corruption to due process.
There was no tacit understanding at all.
As for smacking of corruption to due process, that is you as usual just trying to generate a beatup.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:10 AM
One vote per person. What could be more democratic than that?

Every person, every vote.

Completion of the survey as a manditory part of membership to the NSWCA . Hand over the $$, the application form and the completed survey, or you art not a member.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 11:11 AM
And Wollongong! we have a 150km round trip !!! But hey, if you are not a part of the metro mob, you don't count in NSW.
The Grade Matchws are a Sydney competition.
That said, we dont however restrict non Sydney clubs from entering and participating.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 11:13 AM
Every person, every vote.

Completion of the survey as a manditory part of membership to the NSWCA . Hand over the $$, the application form and the completed survey, or you art not a member.
That is unnecessarily dicatatorial.
Of course such a suggestion is expected from the likes of you.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:17 AM
There is just no dynamic element in the establishment any more, man.

You have been reading to much Sweeney.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 11:24 AM
No mandate. It is a comunity divided.
There is certainly no mandate for change.




so why don't you apply this to ratings. It is called extrapolation.
A case of "My ACF right or wrong."
Its a case of doing what we believe is right.



said the Fuhrer
No. This was decided by Council prior to 2003 and not when I was President.


Disemination of info is more important than increasing the coffers from $80.0k to $80.5k
I never suggestted that NSWCA increase its membership fee at all.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:34 AM
... my views on how NSW chess should be run are more closely aligned with administrators such as Charles Zworestine and Bob Keast than the present NSWCA Council.

Three great organisers who will never again join the NSWCA council. Need we wonder why.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 11:43 AM
Three great organisers who will never again join the NSWCA council. Need we wonder why.
Charles decision not to be on Council is for reasons other than any conflict with existing members of Council including myself. Charles and I get on very well together.
Likewise Bobs decision had nothing to do with any issues with council members but was due to family circumstances.
Paul had made it clear when he first stood for council that he only planned to serve one term. There are no issues between him and council members.

As usual you keep making comments without knowing what you are talking about.
Of course that isnt really unexpected.

You did nothing whilst on council. You are just a joke.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:49 AM
I think you will find that Parramatta Chess Club is still alive and kicking!
C'mon guys get your ears closer to the ground!

Increased peristalsis will be needed for their shell-likes to properly contact the turf laid inside their chocolate starfish. Unfortunately, the dieing display no peristalsis.

Garvinator
22-11-2004, 11:54 AM
oh well no need to read this thread anymore.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:54 AM
No, I was just pointing out that a member of Wollongong had been on Council, so in theory could have expressed their viewpoint.


I did. That is why the NSWCA paid us and others $200 shut-up money over a calender clash.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 11:58 AM
I am sure that I am not the only person in NSW chess who thinks a meeting of club delegates would be a good idea!

If there was, I think I might be the only one from the Gong who would bother to go. No one down here thinks the NSWCA is worth feeding.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 12:02 PM
If there was, I think I might be the only one from the Gong who would bother to go. No one down here thinks the NSWCA is worth feeding.
As Barry said elsewhere your views hardly express those of the the Gong.
If we wanted an opinion we would ask John Mazzieri.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2004, 12:09 PM
I did. That is why the NSWCA paid us and others $200 shut-up money over a calender clash.
Rubbish.
We paid money to Laurieton and yourself to offset any potential impact on participants in their events by the NSW Masters.
In the case of Laurieton and your common man event there was no impact.
In fact it would appear the dismal numbers at your Common Man event were all your own doing. It appears you did little to no advertising and failed to capitalise on its numbers from the previous year.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 12:13 PM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]

1. NSWCA runs too many city weekenders. Better to have a few high quality events than so many average uninspiring events.

2. The NSW Teams Challenge should be continued.

3. The State Championship should be run over one long weekend not 9 or 11.

4. NSWCA should do more to support country chess.

5. NSWCA President Bill Gletsos should listen more and talk less!

All the way with BJ for President.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 12:16 PM
As has been said previously there was no support for this in the members survey.

Prove it. Release the TOP SECRET survey results - all of them.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 12:28 PM
He is talking about getting clubs to consider changing their calendars so as not clash events.
Therefore its a matter for the individual clubs, that would have nothing to do with the NSWCA and require no endorsement.

It has everything to to with the NSWCA. Your stupidity never cesses to amaze. The NSWCA constitution states:

"2. OBJECTS
To encourage, promote, maintain and control the playing of Chess in the State of New South Wales by: -

encouraging the teaching and playing of chess in schools and amongst juniors and by promoting matches between schools,

promoting and conducting chess matches, competitions, and tournaments,
awarding prizes, titles, and awards,


affiliating with the Australian Chess Federation and, as is necessary, affiliating or co-operating with other chess, sporting, or social organizations, whether inside or outside New South Wales,

adopting or altering rules of play,

providing means for hearing and determining disputes, and by

taking actions it deems necessary to promote the aforesaid." [bold by MS]

Therefore, the NSWCA should be helping the clubs avoid calender clashes.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 12:32 PM
I would envisage the main topics would be things like how to boost club membership numbers, ways to make club chess more appealing, getting more players involved in interclub chess, co-operation between clubs etc etc.

Well, I think such a meeting would be beneficial for NSW club chess, but it seems the NSWCA Council disagrees.

Read the post above.

What you are proposing is very close to a coup. How about a special emergency meeting to sack the executive. It has been done before.

Rincewind
22-11-2004, 12:35 PM
As Barry said elsewhere your views hardly express those of the the Gong.
If we wanted an opinion we would ask John Mazzieri.

Actually what I said is that Matt was [not] representative as he wasn't voted for locally. The same would apply to John.

However, John is the main organiser of the club are organiser and DOP of most (if not all) club events would probably be the best person in the world to talk about the sentiments of the Wollongong chess community in general. He is also involved in organising junior chess so has all bases covered there.

Regarding local sentiment re:NSWCA, my impression is club only players see little value in it and are probably not even members. Those who enter grade matches/NSWCA events/etc, probably become members whether they want to or not. Then there are a few (maybe 1/4) would would become members of NSWCA regardless of requirements of tournament entry. They think supporting the state association is worthwhile, even if they don't have the time or interest to play a more active part in its function.

PHAT
22-11-2004, 12:40 PM
I didnt deliberately forget anything.
The council gave the members the opportunity to fill iin the Survey.
it is not the councils fault if members chose not to do so.Of course it is Council's fault. COucil did not make the survey compulsory as part of membership renewal.




There was no tacit understanding at all.
As for smacking of corruption to due process, that is you as usual just trying to generate a beatup.

Why is the survey secret. That is OUR survey, the members survey. The NSWCA is of and for us all. The survey results should be tabled imeadiately. You are behaving like a certain NSW judge with his blood samples.