PDA

View Full Version : Australian Womens Championship



Oepty
20-12-2004, 01:32 PM
This title is due to be awarded the hisghest scoring Australian female in the Australian Open. This requires that at least 6 females compete and they come from three states. So far in the public lists only 4 females have entered, Angela Song, Shannon Oliver, Sally Yu and Shuyu Wang (Who I believe is female even though listed as a male in the Swiss Perfect master list). This meets the 3 state rule. What will happen if 6 females do not play in the Open? Will the title be declared vacant? What happens in the defending champion enters the tournament but the conditions are not statisfied. Do they retain the title or is it declared vacant? Is there any scope for the replacement Australian Womens Championship to be organised if the title is vacant?

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 03:20 PM
This title is due to be awarded the hisghest scoring Australian female in the Australian Open. This requires that at least 6 females compete and they come from three states. So far in the public lists only 4 females have entered, Angela Song, Shannon Oliver, Sally Yu and Shuyu Wang (Who I believe is female even though listed as a male in the Swiss Perfect master list). This meets the 3 state rule. What will happen if 6 females do not play in the Open? Will the title be declared vacant? What happens in the defending champion enters the tournament but the conditions are not statisfied. Do they retain the title or is it declared vacant? Is there any scope for the replacement Australian Womens Championship to be organised if the title is vacant?
George and I have discussed the possibility of less than six female playing in the open. If there are less than six females playing, then the Australian Womens Championship will NOT BE AWARDED.

We will still give monetary first and second prizes most likely to the highest placing females, but the title of Australian Womens champion will NOT BE AWARDED.

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2004, 03:51 PM
A little disappointing that none of the strongest female players (those who would be serious contenders for the title if all top Australian female players entered) have put their names down yet.

All sorts of solutions have been tried. If there is no way of running an Australian Womens Championship that is guaranteed to be credible I wonder if the title is worth persisting with.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 03:53 PM
A little disappointing that none of the strongest female players (those who would be serious contenders for the title if all top Australian female players entered) have put their names down yet.

All sorts of solutions have been tried. If there is no way of running an Australian Womens Championship that is guaranteed to be credible I wonder if the title is worth persisting with.
what is even more disappointing is that we are offering $1000 for the australian womens champion. I am starting to get the feeling that MOST, not all, titled players want conditions laid out for them instead of having to play well to earn their money.

jenni
20-12-2004, 05:26 PM
what is even more disappointing is that we are offering $1000 for the australian womens champion. I am starting to get the feeling that MOST, not all, titled players want conditions laid out for them instead of having to play well to earn their money.
Women's chess in Australia is so pathetic (and becoming more so as far as I can see), that you only have to take out a few, before the numbers become absurd. (The absurd refers to the number playing, not the quality of the players :) )If a Women's championships in Melbourne can only attract a few weak players, what chance does Mt Buller have.

However is the solution to abandon female chess or to do something about it?

It is only going to get worse with so little being done for female chess at the junior level. Currently 10 of the 19 girls playing at the Aus juniors are from the ACT. The ratio will get a little better, as I know other girls from other states are entering, but it is still a ridiculous ratio for a 300,000 person town

jenni
20-12-2004, 06:59 PM
So far in the public lists only 4 females have entered, Angela Song, Shannon Oliver, Sally Yu and Shuyu Wang

Andjelija Zivanovic is definitely playing, so we only need 1 more female. Surely Australia is capable of finding one more.....

Ian Rout
20-12-2004, 07:35 PM
Andjelija Zivanovic is definitely playing, so we only need 1 more female. Surely Australia is capable of finding one more.....
There's plenty of time for the five of them to work out that it's worth their while to pay the entry fee for a player's mother/wife/sister and split the prize between them.

jenni
20-12-2004, 07:37 PM
There's plenty of time for the five of them to work out that it's worth their while to pay the entry fee for a player's mother/wife/sister and split the prize between them.

You have a devious mind - I hadn't thought of that. (and no neither Tamzin or I are going to play....)

jenni
20-12-2004, 07:39 PM
What's happened to Narelle? Why isn't she playing? Or Marieke van Dijk - she plays everything.

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 07:50 PM
There's plenty of time for the five of them to work out that it's worth their while to pay the entry fee for a player's mother/wife/sister and split the prize between them.

And the title?

jenni
20-12-2004, 07:59 PM
Andjelija Zivanovic is definitely playing, so we only need 1 more female. Surely Australia is capable of finding one more.....

Oops no - hot off the press - Andjelija has problems with her wisdom teeth that absolutely have to be fixed immediately, so maybe not.....

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 08:02 PM
Oops no - hot off the press - Andjelija has problems with her wisdom teeth that absolutely have to be fixed immediately, so maybe not.....
she hadnt entered in the open so far anyways.

jenni
20-12-2004, 08:09 PM
she hadnt entered in the open so far anyways.

She organised with Shannon to share a room at the Mercure, so Shannon is being left in the lurch, which is what I was feeling was going to happen. Fortunately Shannon has a bourgeoise, snobby, elitist parent to come to the rescue....

However if another woman does want to play and needs to share a room, then there is probably one available.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 08:16 PM
Fortunately Shannon has a bourgeoise, snobby, elitist parent to come to the rescue....
is that allowed ;) to mix insults across threads with someone not principally involved in the first set of insults :lol: :uhoh: and that is dangerous to do as you dont want the goat on a thread about womens tournaments ;)

jenni
20-12-2004, 08:20 PM
is that allowed ;) to mix insults across threads with someone not principally involved in the first set of insults :lol: :uhoh: and that is dangerous to do as you dont want the goat on a thread about womens tournaments ;)

Those were all the insults I could remember without going back and checking various threads - I am sure Matt must have had a few extra ones I couldn't remember. :)

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 09:00 PM
What's happened to Narelle? Why isn't she playing? Or Marieke van Dijk - she plays everything.

Marieke's family has recently persuaded her that she limits her driving to short day trips.

jenni
20-12-2004, 09:17 PM
Marieke's family has recently persuaded her that she limits her driving to short day trips.

Could someone give her a lift - the Stojic's were giving Andjelija a lift, maybe they could give Marieke one instead.

Shannon has gone off to try and bully Catherine Lip into playing.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 09:30 PM
Shannon has gone off to try and bully Catherine Lip into playing.
Hope she succeeds ;)

jenni
20-12-2004, 10:04 PM
new thread created

Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 10:48 PM
Marieke's family has recently persuaded her that she limits her driving to short day trips.
Why is that?

boardumb
20-12-2004, 11:55 PM
Could someone give her a lift - the Stojic's were giving Andjelija a lift, maybe they could give Marieke one instead.

Shannon has gone off to try and bully Catherine Lip into playing.

Isn't Catherine going/gone to M'sia?
Might be a bit of a trip each day ;)

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 06:53 AM
Why is that?

Bill

I am not about to reveal Marieke's age on a public bb; but I could set you one of Barry's puzzle answers....add 40 to the number of (Nescafe) beans in a cup. ;)

starter

jenni
21-12-2004, 10:38 AM
Isn't Catherine going/gone to M'sia?
Might be a bit of a trip each day ;)

Yes you are right she is (I had forgotten that!). She is visiting for the Juniors, but not able to play the Women's. Shu-yu is also pulling out due to family problems, Heather Huddleston is going to America. I kind of think it is impossible to get 6 women.

Garvinator
21-12-2004, 11:12 AM
Yes you are right she is (I had forgotten that!). She is visiting for the Juniors, but not able to play the Women's. Shu-yu is also pulling out due to family problems, Heather Huddleston is going to America. I kind of think it is impossible to get 6 women.
so i take i am to withdraw Heather and Shu-yu from all mt buller events? Is that correct?

jenni
21-12-2004, 03:33 PM
so i take i am to withdraw Heather and Shu-yu from all mt buller events? Is that correct?

If Heather has entered any Mt Buller events I will be amazed. And no - it is up to Shu-yu/Shu-Yu's guardian to withdraw her. I am just repeating gossip I heard.

Garvinator
21-12-2004, 03:36 PM
If Heather has entered any Mt Buller events I will be amazed. And no - it is up to Shu-yu/Shu-Yu's guardian to withdraw her. I am just repeating gossip I heard.
i dont see Heather's name anywhere on the lists and I havent been contacted by any guardians to withdraw names.

Denis_Jessop
21-12-2004, 07:36 PM
Bill

I am not about to reveal Marieke's age on a public bb; but I could set you one of Barry's puzzle answers....add 40 to the number of (Nescafe) beans in a cup. ;)

starter


Does that give the answer in years or in beans? :doh: J M Fangio, full of beans, used to drive an old GP Mercedes around race tracks (though not very far, I'll admit) when he was about 80 (years). Oh, and , by the way, Beethoven used to drink 60-bean coffee :hmm:

Denis Jessop

Trent Parker
21-12-2004, 09:07 PM
Isn't it supposed to be ??? beans in a cup?

isn't that why they call it Nescafe ?????


I think i played Marieke in the Penrith Minor coupla years back. I didn't think she'd be that old (???)!

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 09:54 PM
Isn't it supposed to be ??? beans in a cup?

isn't that why they call it nescafe ????


I think i played Marieke in the Penrith Minor coupla years back. I didn't think she'd be that old (???)!

tcn

You got the correct answer.
But you are no gentleman.

starter

Trent Parker
21-12-2004, 09:58 PM
tcn

You got the correct answer.
But you are no gentleman.

starter

Hey. i'm not the one that put up the simple to work out puzzle!

Almost any dingbat could have worked it out........

Trent Parker
21-12-2004, 10:06 PM
I have changed it. Happy now?

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 10:13 PM
^^
tcn

Yes, you have improved the response.
Just keep an eye on the posts of that nice Mr Barry Cox if you are wanting to master subtlety. He is an exemplary poster.

regards
starter

george
22-12-2004, 09:43 AM
Hi All,

Well it looks like there will be no Women's Championship and no women's prize which is OK for the bottom line which is in the RED.

Kindest Regards
George Howard

Brian_Jones
22-12-2004, 11:01 AM
Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?
In my view the Women's Championship should proceed and the title should be awarded irrespective of how many entries there are. We need to promote Women's chess not spit the dummy when things don't go as planned.
Get on the blower George and Garvin - ring every female chess player in the land! Be positive - maybe try some bribery?

Garvinator
22-12-2004, 11:05 AM
Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?
In my view the Women's Championship should proceed and the title should be awarded irrespective of how many entries there are. We need to promote Women's chess not spit the dummy when things don't go as planned.
Get on the blower George and Garvin - ring every female chess player in the land! Be positive - maybe try some bribery?
if you want to call it bribery, we already tried that, it is called the $1000 first prize to the Australian Womens Champion. We cant award the title as we have to follow the by laws laid for the Australian Womens Championship.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2004, 12:21 PM
Not a good decision.

The decision is not a decision but is forced by virtue of ACF policy. Following the complete fiasco with the 2002 Australian Womens Championship (which ended up being held as part of the Australian Masters with only 3 females competing none of whom were serious pretenders to the title of strongest female in the country) Evelyn Koshnitsky submitted a proposal to the ACF, under which the Australian Womens Championships would be run as part of the Open with the title only awarded if there were at least six females from at least three states competing. This proposal was accepted by Council, albeit not unanimously, after an amendment to remove the minimum number restriction failed.

I moved that amendment but I voted for the motion after the amendment was defeated. I now think that if we are going to persist with this title at all we need to find some way to ensure that there is at least one ACF 2000+ rated female competing every time the title is awarded. If the title is not valued by the strongest female players I see very little purpose in having it, and really cannot see what having a minnie-mouse AWC title does to promote women's chess.

jenni
22-12-2004, 01:09 PM
really cannot see what having a minnie-mouse AWC title does to promote women's chess.

I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess. :evil:

jenni
22-12-2004, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE=Brian_Jones] Be positive QUOTE]

This is the bit they have trouble with.....

jenni
22-12-2004, 01:19 PM
Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?


As I have said I don't believe you can award a creditable title. However why should the women who have entered be penalised and have no prize money to aim for. Even if not $1,000 prize there should be a small prize for the best performing woman. In the interests of promoting women's chess in Australia.

I have a vested interest here - I have a very pissed off daughter. She was one of the first entries in the tournament. She is staying at the Mercure and paying $120 a night for a room and now, at the last minute, a prize that she was hoping to compete for has been snatched away.

Normally all advertised prize-money has to be paid out. The organisers are using a loophole of not having to award the title, because there are not enough females, to claw back the money. A reduced prize fund of $500 would not be unreasonable.

auriga
22-12-2004, 01:29 PM
I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess. :evil:

as a side note,
in the us they offer half entry fee for women
(and also to any player who can show an plane ticket to attend the tourny ie. interstate players).
i would suggest one step further and give free entry to all women to boost numbers.

Oepty
22-12-2004, 03:24 PM
There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that 6 females did enter.

Oepty
22-12-2004, 03:24 PM
There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that less than 6 females entered.

Libby
22-12-2004, 03:40 PM
as a side note,
in the us they offer half entry fee for women
(and also to any player who can show an plane ticket to attend the tourny ie. interstate players).
i would suggest one step further and give free entry to all women to boost numbers.

I don't know that I really agree with the idea of women getting a free ride to enter the event (if you want prizes you need to be expected to contribute in some way to the pool). However, it's not the fault of those women who do enter that others choose not to. You can only be the best of who is there to play. Have a look at the list of girls registered in the junior events to see where the problem starts from. Will we ever get equity in numbers with boys - I think not (and less in the pool to start with makes the prospect of equity in strength and depth a complete pipe-dream, whatever one might argue on the male/female chess merit bandwagon). So we may never get equity in numbers but if you can't do better than the number registered for the 2005 Aus Junior Girls events (disproportionally from the ACT as Jenni points out) then how does anyone ever expect to have a credible Women's field? I'm sure the active female players already counted by Freddy are themselves significantly juniors, not adults.

Removing any prospect of a Womens prize from the Open does nothing but discourage those who do bother to play. By all means review the $$$s but do we want the female population sitting around next year and watching the numbers before they enter? Is a better solution a smaller, guaranteed prize with the main prize and title dependent on entries?

I thought you guys wanted to see more gals at the events? Not just the type you pin up on the back of the door? And certainly not us mothers?

ursogr8
22-12-2004, 05:23 PM
There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that less than 6 females entered.

:clap: Mr Freddy

Like your post mate. All those metrics...great stuff.


starter

Garvinator
22-12-2004, 05:57 PM
George and I have spoken and it looks like we will be offering a womens prize after all. How much it is is not certain, but there will most likely be a womens prize :)

jenni
22-12-2004, 06:08 PM
George and I have spoken and it looks like we will be offering a womens prize after all. How much it is is not certain, but there will most likely be a womens prize :)

Shannon says

"Excellent - it is not the amount of money but the principle. Those women who enter should not be disadvantaged, because the others are slack"

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2004, 06:19 PM
I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess. :evil:
Sometimes however Jenni the women dont actually do themselves any favours.

I know Ralph and I think Charles Z and possibly Kerry earlier this year contacted a number of the more highly rated women players in NSW with the idea that the NSWCA would run the NSW Womens Championship if there was sufficient interest (minimum 6 entries). A number of the 2000+ women as well as some over 1900 said they would play if the event was reasonably short (6-7 rounds) but with a decent time limit.

Ralph suggested we hold it alongside the NSW Open over the June long weekend as this would meet the above requirements but had the added benefit of not incurring a seperate Arbiters fee for the 3 days and no venue costs. Even so the NSWCA were prepared to run it at a loss (as a number of the expected women entrants were WIM's). Unfortunately only one of the women over 2000 decided to actually enter and at one stage there appeared to be little chance of there being 6 entries as a number of the remaining females (mostly juniors) wanted to play in the NSW Open proper. Charles Z managed to convince them (not sure how) to play in the Womens instead.

It should be noted that previous NSW Womens Reps on Council (Carol Holmes and Georgina Tarrant) who were dedicated to the cause found it difficult to get the higher rated women to play in any NSW Womens Championship.

Given the lack of support by the 2000+ women in NSW for the event it will not be held in 2005 nor in the forseeable future.

jenni
22-12-2004, 06:45 PM
Sometimes however Jenni the women dont actually do themselves any favours.

I know Ralph and I think Charles Z and possibly Kerry earlier this year contacted a number of the more highly rated women players in NSW with the idea that the NSWCA would run the NSW Womens Championship if there was sufficient interest (minimum 6 entries). A number of the 2000+ women said they would play if the event was reasonably short (6-7 rounds) but with a decent time limit.

Ralph suggested we hold it alongside the NSW Open over the June long weekend as this would meet the above requirements but had the added benefit of not incurring a seperate Arbiters fee for the 3 days and no venue costs. Even so the NSWCA were prepared to run it at a loss (as a number of the expected women entrants were WIM's). Unfortunately only one of the women over 2000 decided to actually enter and at one stage there appeared to be little chance of there being 6 entries as a number of the remaining females (mostly juniors) wanted to play in the NSW Open proper. Charles Z managed to convince them (not sure how) to play in the Womens instead.

It should be noted that previous NSW Womens Reps on Council (Carol Holmes and Georgina Tarrant) who were dedicated to the cause found it difficult to get the higher rated women to play in any NSW Womens Championship.

Given the lack of support by the 2000+ women in NSW for the event it will not be held in 2005 nor in the forseeable future.

Well the ACT supported it - we supplied 25% :) . My girls were keen to play the Women's, but once they saw the pitiful numbers they preferred to play the Open. However (being community minded), they agreed to play the women's and support it. I think runing it along side the NSW Open was a mistake - the open is turning into a good tournament and the juniors want to play in it.

I agree the women don't help, but I think the rot starts much earlier on. There are very few primary girls playing, which leads to a pitiful no of High school girls and almost no women (apart from imports).

There were 38 girls playing in the Aus girls under 12 and under 18 in Sydney in 1996. Of these 38, Shannon is the only one still playing regularly. Natalie Maris is possibly a second one and Laura still plays sporadically. lets say 10% still involved.

There were 128 playing in the open categories - of these about 17 play regularly or reasonably so. Around 15%.

While a few more boys stay playing than girls it is also a huge dropout. Seems to me that the only way we are going to get women playing, is to have a huge increase in the number playing at the grass roots level.

We have the same problem in the ACT - we have 300+ playing in the Girls Primary schools championships. Our % who go from there to junior weekend tournaments is small and the % who go to a junior club and are prepared to move to an adult club is even smaller. However we do get it happening, which is why we have a large % of the total no of girls playing in the Aus juniors.

It has taken a number of years of very proactive programs and also creating female friendly adult clubs.

I think if anyone is serious about wanting to create a better culture for women in chess in Australia this is where it has to be created. If you have a few more girls playing then it is more fun for the girls and more are likely to stay playing. Once you get bigger numbers in girls chess, hopefully more will play at the adult level.

We need female development, not just bunging on Women's championships and complaining because they don't turn up. (Although I have to say that I think it is disappointing that they don't)

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2004, 07:02 PM
Well the ACT supported it - we supplied 25% :) . My girls were keen to play the Women's, but once they saw the pitiful numbers they preferred to play the Open. However (being community minded), they agreed to play the women's and support it. I think runing it along side the NSW Open was a mistake - the open is turning into a good tournament and the juniors want to play in it.
Clearly the strong women didnt want to play in either.


We need female development,
Agreed.


not just bunging on Women's championships and complaining because they don't turn up. (Although I have to say that I think it is disappointing that they don't)
The point was we wanted the strong women to compete and there was consultation but we still get nowhere.

jenni
22-12-2004, 07:38 PM
The point was we wanted the strong women to compete and there was consultation but we still get nowhere.

There are a lot of strong men who don't play either - just there are enough of them so that even if only 1/4 play, it is enough to seem that we have strong men playing regularly. We have so few strong women, that we probably do have the same % playing, but it is not enough to make an impact and certainly not enough to sustain women's championships. e.g Ingela played the ANU, Slavica played NSW Womens Championships, Sorokina played Ballarat.

It is still a numbers game - make the base of the pyramid big enough, you get a decent number at the apex. It is the lack of proactive development to develop the base that is the problem.

Incidentally it appears only the ACT is sending under 10 girls to play in Mt Buller - what does that say about the state of female chess nationwide?

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2004, 08:02 PM
George and I have spoken and it looks like we will be offering a womens prize after all. How much it is is not certain, but there will most likely be a womens prize :)

If so this is a good decision.

You would have been in a stronger position to not retain such a prize had the entry booklet carried a rider "subject to sufficient entries" on that prize. You would still probably be within your rights to not award a prize but I think it would be an unpopular decision.

Those who have at least made the effort to compete are not at fault and should be in the running for something.

shaun
22-12-2004, 08:12 PM
I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess. :evil:

I have a great degree of sympathy for the organisers of this years Australian Open, and I can certainly understand why they canned the prize money. Having said that I do think that those women who actually made the effort to enter have been disadvantaged by this decision.
But if you are going to point the finger of blame at anyone, blaming the "wonderful male chess establishment" means you are not going to solve any of the problems of participation numbers in womens chess in this country. Try looking at a) the female players who didn't play and b) the organisation that purports to represent them, the AWCL.
Starting with (A). We are not talking about beginners here. There are plenty of women who can play chess and have no difficulty competing on even terms with their male counterparts. Clearly at some stage in the past they made the effort to participate in other events, or how else would they be as strong as they are. And yet when the organisers make a real effort to reward them, they (as a collective group) cannot be bothered to give their support. Little wonder that the wisdom of treating female players as a seperate entity that needs to be over compensated for is under question.
And (B). Female chess players have their own organisation, the AWCL. But what has it actually done for womens chess. Sure it sticks its oar in when the ACF tries to set minimum game requirements for Olympiad selections, and on occasion has organised seperate Australian Womens Championships, but overall its contribution to increasing participation rates amongst female players has been negligible (at least as far as I can see).
So, if I was a female player and I wanted a decent national championship event, I wouldn't be moaning about the ACF, the Australian Open or even the "wonderful male chess establishment", I'd be getting myself onto the board of the AWCL and organising one myself.

Garvinator
22-12-2004, 08:15 PM
Shaun,

I agree with your post, but one correction, we are now going to offer a womens prize, but not sure how much it will be.

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2004, 08:41 PM
There are a lot of strong men who don't play either - just there are enough of them so that even if only 1/4 play, it is enough to seem that we have strong men playing regularly. We have so few strong women, that we probably do have the same % playing, but it is not enough to make an impact and certainly not enough to sustain women's championships. e.g Ingela played the ANU, Slavica played NSW Womens Championships, Sorokina played Ballarat.
I think you missed my point or perhaps I was unclear.
Ralph and the others consulted with the strong women players and they said they would play.

However when the event went ahead they failed to participate.

Denis_Jessop
22-12-2004, 08:55 PM
So, if I was a female player and I wanted a decent national championship event, I wouldn't be moaning about the ACF, the Australian Open or even the "wonderful male chess establishment", I'd be getting myself onto the board of the AWCL and organising one myself.


I'm sure that the ACF would be happy if the AWCL volunteered to run the Australian Women's Championship. But it would seem logical to have it at the same time as the Australian Championships so I'm not sure that this is the answer. Moreover, are there any grounds for expecting that an AWCL event would attract any more players, especially the top-ranked ones than are attracted at present? Their past efforts and their acquiescence to the present arrangement suggest otherwise.

The problem seems to be, as Jenni says, the more basic one that there is such a small player base to start with. After all, there are also many top men not playing in this year's Open, and that is the case every time, but you can still get a respectable entry because there is such a greater player base to support it.

This is not a problem that will be solved (assuming we maintain the present format) in 2 years' time or even in 4 years' time. It will take a concentrated long-term effort to build up a large enough player base to support a respectable event. Here the big question is who is able to make that effort. Grass-roots player development is generally the province of the States rather than the ACF due both to constitutional and practical geographical considerations. If there is to be a nation-wide effort this is where an active AWCL could have a major role. But it will need to be a more effective organisation than it is now and this is where Shaun's exhortation comes into play.

The problem can also be attacked as part of the general one of player retention that urgently needs to be addressed irrespective of gender.

Denis Jessop

Cat
22-12-2004, 09:04 PM
I'm sure that the ACF would be happy if the AWCL volunteered to run the Australian Women's Championship. But it would seem logical to have it at the same time as the Australian Championships so I'm not sure that this is the answer. Moreover, are there any grounds for expecting that an AWCL event would attract any more players, especially the top-ranked ones than are attracted at present? Their past efforts and their acquiescence to the present arrangement suggest otherwise.

The problem seems to be, as Jenni says, the more basic one that there is such a small player base to start with. After all, there are also many top men not playing in this year's Open, and that is the case every time, but you can still get a respectable entry because there is such a greater player base to support it.

This is not a problem that will be solved (assuming we maintain the present format) in 2 years' time or even in 4 years' time. It will take a concentrated long-term effort to build up a large enough player base to support a respectable event. Here the big question is who is able to make that effort. Grass-roots player development is generally the province of the States rather than the ACF due both to constitutional and practical geographical considerations. If there is to be a nation-wide effort this is where an active AWCL could have a major role. But it will need to be a more effective organisation than it is now and this is where Shaun's exhortation comes into play.

The problem can also be attacked as part of the general one of player retention that urgently needs to be addressed irrespective of gender.

Denis Jessop

Bold and imaginative words, Dennis, good luck!

george
22-12-2004, 09:08 PM
Hi All,

The top female if she has not won a greater or equal prize will win $500 which equates to first prize in one of the three rating sections.

There are insufficient women from at least three states to award the Women's Championship (see ACF by-laws).

The Entry deadline for the Lidums is midnight tonight on-line and the Post Box tomorrow morning.

So if active female chessplayers can rouse up some more female players for the Lidums Open I will be only too overjoyed to reinstate the Australian Champion Women's Prize.
I would have thought the Women's Chess League may have done something to encourage females to play , perhaps they did I dont know but the $1,000 original prize for Australian Women's Champion was coming from the Tourney and not Evelyn as I understand has been the case in the past for a part or all of the Women's Prize.

Regards to ALL
George Howard

jenni
22-12-2004, 09:15 PM
I think you missed my point or perhaps I was unclear.
Ralph and the others consulted with the strong women players and they said they would play.

However when the event went ahead they failed to participate.

Yes I am aware of that and it sucks. My girls went to NSW to play based on the fact that they were told that there would be all these strong women to play against.

So I am not supporting their actions.


However I think we shouldn't be worrying about what a group of women did or didn't do, but looking at the real problem which is that not enough development work is currently being done to create a big base of girls playing chess.

Maybe if we create a large no of women playing in the future, we won't have a group of spoilt prima donnas (see I can alienate all the men and the women in a single thread :) ).

If they really had to compete in order to get selection for overseas, they would have to play more.

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2004, 09:23 PM
Yes I am aware of that and it sucks. My girls went to NSW to play based on the fact that they were told that there would be all these strong women to play against.

So I am not supporting their actions.
I really was just explaining why in the forseeable future there there is currently no plans for the holding of a NSW Womens Championship.


However I think we shouldn't be worrying about what a group of women did or didn't do, but looking at the real problem which is that not enough development work is currently being done to create a big base of girls playing chess.

Maybe if we create a large no of women playing in the future, we won't have a group of spoilt prima donnas (see I can alienate all the men and the women in a single thread :) ).
You are nothing if not talented. ;)


If they really had to compete in order to get selection for overseas, they would have to play more.
True.

jenni
22-12-2004, 09:26 PM
So, if I was a female player and I wanted a decent national championship event, I wouldn't be moaning about the ACF, the Australian Open or even the "wonderful male chess establishment", I'd be getting myself onto the board of the AWCL and organising one myself.
I think maybe the AWCL was a power in the past, but it doesn't seem to do much these days?

I suspect Evelyn was very much a driving force behind this, but her health has not been good for the last couple of years and I think the organisation is fading.

In the years that I have been involved the AWCL did a great job with the DD, but it doesn't seem to have too much of a profile besides that.

I think we don't need anymore fragmentation of the chess scene. I am not sure that women working on their own in some little isolated pool is really what we want.

As most people know I have always promoted girls only things as a way of nurturing and encouraging girls to become involved in chess and enjoying it. However I have also always believed passionately that it is only a stepping stone to full participation in the open competitions.

So I believe that it should be the role of the ACF and state organisations to promote all development, including girls development. I really can't see how the AWCL would have much of a role in this.

I am not really attacking the male organisers in Australia - just a bit cranky perhaps that the solution to a small womens's comp seemed to be to abandon women's chess, rather than do something about it (some of my best friends are male :) )

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2004, 09:57 PM
The problem goes far beyond merely female participation rates. Every time the Australian Championships is held you'll get maybe half of the nation's top male players (and often one or two of the top female players as well) competing. Yet now if this Australian Womens Championship is held, it will potentially have none of the top ten women in the country. If top female players supported the Women's Championship the way top male players support the Championship we would not be having this discussion, irrespective of the low participation rate of females generally. They don't, and I'm not sure that getting more women into chess (while a very important goal in itself) is alone going to make the Australian Womens Championship a credible event.


If they really had to compete in order to get selection for overseas, they would have to play more.

That's certainly one way to encourage participation - dangle an Olympiad or Zonal spot. I'd hope it could be less dramatic than that because in an ideal world, I'd prefer to have all selections based solely on merit as judged by the selectors, rather than on one-off qualifiers.

arosar
23-12-2004, 07:29 AM
There are more important things to think about than this championships for sheilas. just can the whole comp/title.

AR

shaun
23-12-2004, 08:11 AM
That's certainly one way to encourage participation - dangle an Olympiad or Zonal spot. I'd hope it could be less dramatic than that because in an ideal world, I'd prefer to have all selections based solely on merit as judged by the selectors, rather than on one-off qualifiers.

Selection entirely on merit has been the consistent attitude of the AWCL every time the ACF has considered changing the selection rules to encourage the leading players (both men and women) to play more games (eg minimum rated game requirements or participation in at least 1 Australian Champs/Open).
The net result has been (specificaly for the Womens Olympiad Team), a group of strong but inactive players who pop their heads up every 2 years, get picked for the Olympiad team, and then retreat into inactivity when they pass through Australian customs. This, in my opinion, is a major factor in a generation of strong female players from the late 80's onwards, giving away the game as anything more than a social pasttime. Despite a solid group of late teens/early 20's female players who played in a substantial number of events, their path to greater reward was blocked by notion that Australia had to pick the "strongest" womens team, even if that meant picking players who hardly ever played locally. By the time this attitude had shifted even a little, a number of strong young female players had alradey dropped out.

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 08:24 AM
The net result has been (specificaly for the Womens Olympiad Team), a group of strong but inactive players who pop their heads up every 2 years, get picked for the Olympiad team, and then retreat into inactivity when they pass through Australian customs.

So why not set a criteria that to be eligible the candidates for selection must have played at least 'N' rated games over the previous 18 months in either State or National championships to be considered?

I would hazard a guess that just about every other sport requires participants to be active on a regular basis in their local competitions in order to be eligible. Can anyone think of examples where this is not so?

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 09:14 AM
So why not set a criteria that to be eligible the candidates for selection must have played at least 'N' rated games over the previous 18 months in either State or National championships to be considered?

I would hazard a guess that just about every other sport requires participants to be active on a regular basis in their local competitions in order to be eligible. Can anyone think of examples where this is not so?
Part of the issue Frosty is that we only have about three or four women players rated over 2000 acf and then there is a drop off to the next set of female players.

If we had ten female players over 2000, then activity clauses would not be needed as I am sure the active players would be chosen as they have more current form on the board and would be chosen by the selectors. Also the selectors would probably select the active players because they are at least playing in tournaments.

Imagine the uproar and complaints from some chess circles if we send a group of 1600 acf rated females based on an activity clause alone.

Ian_Rogers
23-12-2004, 09:34 AM
The ACF had activity requirements for the Olympiad for many years - it never resulted in a weak team, only in forcing some of the top players to play a bit more.
I still have no idea why the ACF dropped the rule about four years ago.
The next National Conference could do worse than reintroduce the clause requiring, say, 40 ACF or FIDE rated non-rapid games over the two years prior to selection (games from the previous Olympiad not included).
40 games in two years is not much - about three tournaments a year.
It would be good to also have a rule requiring selected players to compete after selection (prior to the Olympiad), but that seems to be unenforceable.

Ian

jenni
23-12-2004, 11:20 AM
The top female if she has not won a greater or equal prize will win $500 which equates to first prize in one of the three rating sections.



This is a win-win situation. The organisers are unlikely to have to pay out any money (you would think Elena Sedina, who is seeded 4th would finish in the top 10), however it gives the Aussie girls something to aim for (and hope Sedina has a bad tournament and they have a good one).

Oepty
23-12-2004, 01:49 PM
i think it was Libby who made a comment about the breakdown of females players into adults and juniors. I went back to my list,removed one name from it as I think they are male, and using the resources I had on offer and a bit of educated and slightly less educated guess work came up with 90 active rated junior females and 64 rated active adult females.

I think there is 4 main contenders to be considered the strongest female in Australia, Berezina-Feldman, Caoilli, Sorokina and Koshnitsky. A womens championship without at least a couple of these would be a bit second rate. A bit like if we had a Australian Championship without all of Rogers, Johansen, Smerdon, Zhao, Lane, Solomon and couple more.

It is interesting of the women mentioned above, Berezina-Feldman and Sorokina are playing a tournament in January, the zonal in NZL starting January 30. Szuveges is also playing. I wonder whether this has had any impact on numbers.

Denis_Jessop
23-12-2004, 03:28 PM
I think maybe the AWCL was a power in the past, but it doesn't seem to do much these days?

I suspect Evelyn was very much a driving force behind this, but her health has not been good for the last couple of years and I think the organisation is fading.

In the years that I have been involved the AWCL did a great job with the DD, but it doesn't seem to have too much of a profile besides that.

I think we don't need anymore fragmentation of the chess scene. I am not sure that women working on their own in some little isolated pool is really what we want.

As most people know I have always promoted girls only things as a way of nurturing and encouraging girls to become involved in chess and enjoying it. However I have also always believed passionately that it is only a stepping stone to full participation in the open competitions.

So I believe that it should be the role of the ACF and state organisations to promote all development, including girls development. I really can't see how the AWCL would have much of a role in this.

I am not really attacking the male organisers in Australia - just a bit cranky perhaps that the solution to a small womens's comp seemed to be to abandon women's chess, rather than do something about it (some of my best friends are male :) )

I am more than a little puzzled by your line on the AWCL, Jenni, as it seems to me to be completely contrary to the view you take about junior chess. I see the AWCL, which is affiliated with the ACF as an associated body, to be the broad equivalent of the recently-established ACF Junior Subcomittee. Both bodies represent a special interest in Australian chess and have the ability to bring to the notice of the ACF Council special issues and considerations affecting their particular area. There are currently no women on the ACF Council so, without some input from outside, how is the ACF Council to know what the particular interests and problems of women's chess are - the very point you quite validly made about junior chess over the past year. It is no great reflection on Australian women chess players if they can't keep their own lobby group in good working order. I don't see the ACF being in a position to make any reasonable decisions about the Womens Championship or like matters without input of the kind to which I have referred. I certainly would not be encouraging the Council to do much if the only likely outcome was a burst of criticism from outsiders who had done nothing to provide the ACF with information on which to base its action. :wall:

On the other hand I agree that fragmentation is not a good thing generally and I would not see special interest groups going beyond junior chess, womens' chess, chess for handicapped players (though there is no pressure of which I am aware for such a group so we can put it aside for now) and correspondence chess, already represented by the CCLA (an ACF affiliated associated body) and not really dealing with the same problems.

Denis Jessop

jenni
23-12-2004, 04:00 PM
I am more than a little puzzled by your line on the AWCL, Jenni, as it seems to me to be completely contrary to the view you take about junior chess. I see the AWCL, which is affiliated with the ACF as an associated body, to be the broad equivalent of the recently-established ACF Junior Subcomittee. Both bodies represent a special interest in Australian chess and have the ability to bring to the notice of the ACF Council special issues and considerations affecting their particular area. There are currently no women on the ACF Council so, without some input from outside, how is the ACF Council to know what the particular interests and problems of women's chess are - the very point you quite validly made about junior chess over the past year. It is no great reflection on Australian women chess players if they can't keep their own lobby group in good working order. I don't see the ACF being in a position to make any reasonable decisions about the Womens Championship or like matters without input of the kind to which I have referred. I certainly would not be encouraging the Council to do much if the only likely outcome was a burst of criticism from outsiders who had done nothing to provide the ACF with information on which to base its action. :wall:

On the other hand I agree that fragmentation is not a good thing generally and I would not see special interest groups going beyond junior chess, womens' chess, chess for handicapped players (though there is no pressure of which I am aware for such a group so we can put it aside for now) and correspondence chess, already represented by the CCLA (an ACF affiliated associated body) and not really dealing with the same problems.

Denis Jessop

I am speaking from a base of ignorance here, because apart from organising the DD for many years and putting out a very interesting newsletter, I am not sure what the AWCL did.

I suspect it did have a good role in female development in years past, but not in the period I have been involved in chess, (since 1996). of course you could argue that just the existence of the DD played a role in developing girls chess, but I suppose I see that more as a vehicle for providing opportunities for girls after the development initiative, rather than a major development tool in its own right.

Before suggesting the ACF Junior sub-committee, I thought long and hard about just developing a national junior body that could pursue a junior agenda free of interference from the often rather annoying adult environment. However I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a very good idea - for all the reasons of divisiveness and fragmentation. We really want to establish close links between the adult and junior environments. We want juniors to be able to see pathways for the future and adults to have more understanding of the needs of the juniors.

I suppose I see the AWCL as closer to a separate national junior body than an ACF sub-committee. While it is affiliated to the ACF, it seems to exist in a world of its own - apart from input from Evelyn of course. I am sure when she speaks the adults listen! No doubt it does play an important role in advising on female chess issues. (Also what is going to happen when Evelyn goes? Alreday her lessened involvement seems to have had an impact on the organisation. Of course another person might take over, but there is no natural successor at the moment).

I viewed the ACF Junior sub-committee as a way of allowing the ACF to make informed policy decision with respect to junior matters, as well as creating a body that had a vested interest in creating a national focus for junior development.

There is no reason why the AWCL couldn't be a similar body, I just haven't seen it doing so while I have been involved. I am sure in the past it probably did, so maybe you have a different perspective of the organisation.

I wuld hope that one of the things that the Junior sub-committtee would do would be to look at development of girls chess and I think this fits more naturally with the Junior sub-committee and the state organisations than the AWCL.

The ACF has to do something about getting more adults to keep playing and I think the women not playing is just a more extreme case of the same problem, so it would make sense to look at both problems and come up with effective strategies.

I guess I am a bit of a centralist - while I think the work can be done by different bodies - state organisations, junior organisations, women's organisations, there needs to be an overall plan and controlling body, allowing continuity and direction. Also it concerns me that if we have a body that has its main focus on a girls only competiton, we are not really looking at pathways into the mainstream chess environment.

So I am sure the AWCL does have a role to play in advising the ACF on women's needs in chess, but I think serious girls development is going to need to be more integrated with general junior development and not split off into yet another body.

Denis_Jessop
23-12-2004, 07:46 PM
I am speaking from a base of ignorance here, because apart from organising the DD for many years and putting out a very interesting newsletter, I am not sure what the AWCL did.

I suspect it did have a good role in female development in years past, but not in the period I have been involved in chess, (since 1996). of course you could argue that just the existence of the DD played a role in developing girls chess, but I suppose I see that more as a vehicle for providing opportunities for girls after the development initiative, rather than a major development tool in its own right.

Before suggesting the ACF Junior sub-committee, I thought long and hard about just developing a national junior body that could pursue a junior agenda free of interference from the often rather annoying adult environment. However I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a very good idea - for all the reasons of divisiveness and fragmentation. We really want to establish close links between the adult and junior environments. We want juniors to be able to see pathways for the future and adults to have more understanding of the needs of the juniors.

I suppose I see the AWCL as closer to a separate national junior body than an ACF sub-committee. While it is affiliated to the ACF, it seems to exist in a world of its own - apart from input from Evelyn of course. I am sure when she speaks the adults listen! No doubt it does play an important role in advising on female chess issues. (Also what is going to happen when Evelyn goes? Alreday her lessened involvement seems to have had an impact on the organisation. Of course another person might take over, but there is no natural successor at the moment).

I viewed the ACF Junior sub-committee as a way of allowing the ACF to make informed policy decision with respect to junior matters, as well as creating a body that had a vested interest in creating a national focus for junior development.

There is no reason why the AWCL couldn't be a similar body, I just haven't seen it doing so while I have been involved. I am sure in the past it probably did, so maybe you have a different perspective of the organisation.

I wuld hope that one of the things that the Junior sub-committtee would do would be to look at development of girls chess and I think this fits more naturally with the Junior sub-committee and the state organisations than the AWCL.

The ACF has to do something about getting more adults to keep playing and I think the women not playing is just a more extreme case of the same problem, so it would make sense to look at both problems and come up with effective strategies.

I guess I am a bit of a centralist - while I think the work can be done by different bodies - state organisations, junior organisations, women's organisations, there needs to be an overall plan and controlling body, allowing continuity and direction. Also it concerns me that if we ahve a body that has its main focus on a girsl only competiton, we are not really looking at pathways into the mainstream chess environment.

So I am sure the AWCL does have a role to play in advising the ACF on women's needs in chess, but I think serious girls development is going to need to be more integrated with general junior development and not split off into yet another body.

I think that we are probably in general agreement about the appropriate approach to this matter. I do not see it as appropriate for the AWCL to operate independently of the ACF in administering chess in Australia for women just as I see it as best for the ACF to have responsibility for the oversight of junior chess development.

If the AWCL is not able to rejuvenate itself, some other approach to the problems of women's chess may be needed. In any case, as the DD is an Australian national women's teams event, perhaps the ACF should oversee it anyway, say, run by the AWCL for the ACF if the AWCL is alive enough.

As for its being the ACF's responsibility to bring more adults into chess or to see that ex-juniors keep on playing, I'm not so sure. Though favouring an active role for the ACF in such matters, I see the rejection of the ACF Commission proposal, which I supported, and the failure of anyone to second my proposals for Chess Co-ordinators at the April Council meeting as indicators that the prevailing view is for the ACF to stick to things that are National in character in that they are better, or necessarily, to be done by the ACF than by the States. We therefore need to see what the States can do about this matter. I distinguish this from, say, junior development such as is as undertaken by the NECG program where a national approach seems more appropriate.

Denis Jessop

Cat
23-12-2004, 10:27 PM
As for its being the ACF's responsibility to bring more adults into chess or to see that ex-juniors keep on playing, I'm not so sure. Though favouring an active role for the ACF in such matters, I see the rejection of the ACF Commission proposal, which I supported, and the failure of anyone to second my proposals for Chess Co-ordinators at the April Council meeting as indicators that the prevailing view is for the ACF to stick to things that are National in character in that they are better, or necessarily, to be done by the ACF than by the States. We therefore need to see what the States can do about this matter. I distinguish this from, say, junior development such as is as undertaken by the NECG program where a national approach seems more appropriate.

Denis Jessop

Surely its the only way to go, a centrally co-ordinated as exists in most other sporting bodies and most chess associations in other countries. If the States see development as their preserve, there should be some onus on the States to deliver, otherwise all we have is gridlock. Don't give up on the ideal Dennis, let it be the stamp of your Presidency. Who were the fools that voted against it? They should be dragged over the coals and flogged!

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2004, 07:05 PM
Part of the issue Frosty is that we only have about three or four women players rated over 2000 acf and then there is a drop off to the next set of female players.

Actually there are currently six over 2000 with ! or !! ratings - Caoili, Berezina, Sorokina, Nguyen, Eriksson, Dekic. Bill could perhaps tell us how many 2000+ females are active-listed with blank or ? ratings, if any.


The ACF had activity requirements for the Olympiad for many years - it never resulted in a weak team, only in forcing some of the top players to play a bit more.
I still have no idea why the ACF dropped the rule about four years ago.
The next National Conference could do worse than reintroduce the clause requiring, say, 40 ACF or FIDE rated non-rapid games over the two years prior to selection (games from the previous Olympiad not included).

Prior to its deletion the requirement was 20 games. I'm still confused about the exact events surrounding the dropping of the criterion and I was on Council at the time so I'm not sure what anyone else is expected to make of it. However, it would have been reinstated this time except that the reinstatement would have come too close to the selections to be fair to those players struggling to make the cut. It's not on the notice for Conference but it is on a list of draft reforms I'm working on and when it was last raised at Council there was support for reinstating it before the next Olympiad. Certainly having very inactive players apply does not make things easy for the selectors.


The net result has been (specificaly for the Womens Olympiad Team), a group of strong but inactive players who pop their heads up every 2 years, get picked for the Olympiad team, and then retreat into inactivity when they pass through Australian customs. This, in my opinion, is a major factor in a generation of strong female players from the late 80's onwards, giving away the game as anything more than a social pasttime. Despite a solid group of late teens/early 20's female players who played in a substantial number of events, their path to greater reward was blocked by notion that Australia had to pick the "strongest" womens team, even if that meant picking players who hardly ever played locally. By the time this attitude had shifted even a little, a number of strong young female players had alradey dropped out.

I wonder how great the effect of criteria in deterring players who otherwise rarely play locally from applying actually is. Or are you suggesting that annoyance with these players getting into the team so easily was a factor?

Bill Gletsos
24-12-2004, 11:48 PM
Actually there are currently six over 2000 with ! or !! ratings - Caoili, Berezina, Sorokina, Nguyen, Eriksson, Dekic. Bill could perhaps tell us how many 2000+ females are active-listed with blank or ? ratings, if any.
The only other active player over 2000 is Koshnitsky (2216 ).

Even if you include inactives you only gain another 4:
2282?? Nutu-Gajic, Daniela [WGM]
2160?? Vasilevska, Tatiana
2148?? Aladjova-Wills, Katrin [WFM]
2021? Rozycki, Edyta

Leonid Sandler
25-12-2004, 11:10 AM
I think it is very important to do something about womens chess in this country,by the way in 2008 Chess Olympiad in Germany will be four playing boards not three as it was this year.I do have some ideas...

jenni
25-12-2004, 10:01 PM
I think it is very important to do something about womens chess in this country,by the way in 2008 Chess Olympiad in Germany will be four playing boards not three as it was this year.I do have some ideas...

Can you share them with us?

Leonid Sandler
26-12-2004, 12:55 PM
I will in due course.

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 04:10 PM
I notice Charles Z has said as part of his report on the Australian Open Rapid Play that "Sally Yu won the title of Australian Open Women's Rapidplay Champion for 2005.".
I'm doubt the Arbiter is authorised to declare a Champion, especially where no such prize/title was even explicitly advertised for the event.
Given those circumstances as well as the fact that Sally was the only female participant, I doubt the ACF Council will ratify the title.

Oepty
03-01-2005, 04:19 PM
A similar thing happened with Laura Morrisey being the only female to play in the Australian Rapid Play Championships in Adelaide last January. I don't know whether she was given the title or not
Scott

shaun
05-01-2005, 09:21 AM
I notice Charles Z has said as part of his report on the Australian Open Rapid Play that "Sally Yu won the title of Australian Open Women's Rapidplay Champion for 2005.".
I'm doubt the Arbiter is authorised to declare a Champion, especially where no such prize/title was even explicitly advertised for the event.
Given those circumstances as well as the fact that Sally was the only female participant, I doubt the ACF Council will ratify the title.

Gee, did Santa give you a sock full of coal for Xmas.
There were two trophies on offer, one for the winner of the tournament, and one for the "Australian Womens Open Rapid Play Champion" as listed in the ACF By-Laws. As there is no conditions to awarding the title (apart from holding the tournament itself) it is perfectly acceptable to declare Sally the winner and award her the title and trophy.
Of course the ACF could be mean spirited and retroactively remove the title from her but would the ACF do that to a 10 year old girl?

jenni
05-01-2005, 12:34 PM
Gee, did Santa give you a sock full of coal for Xmas.
?

I must admit I did think it was a little bit of a sour post as well. I think in terms of rewarding the only female who played, it could be viewed as developing female chess...

Oepty
05-01-2005, 01:19 PM
I wonder whether the perception is that Sally Yu is just to weak to award her the title and it would devalue the title. I know this is the argument I got against Morrisey winning the title last January in Adelaide. I got this argument very strongly from a person who is heavily involved in both junior and womens chess, and I am not going to name them. I wonder if the one women who entered was rated over 2000 whether there would be the same reluctance.
Scott

Libby
05-01-2005, 01:29 PM
I wonder whether the perception is that Sally Yu is just to weak to award her the title and it would devalue the title. I know this is the argument I got against Morrisey winning the title last January in Adelaide. I got this argument very strongly from a person who is heavily involved in both junior and womens chess, and I am not going to name them. I wonder if the one women who entered was rated over 2000 whether there would be the same reluctance.
Scott

Strongly subscribe to the idea that you can only beat the field against whom you are asked to play.

It is very unpleasant (and happens in many events) for player's victories to be couched in terms like "but of course, they only won because"x" played the Open instead" or because they were the only entrant or worse "they only won because there was that upset and no way would "x" drop a game like that again."

If there is a division - girls, womens, U1600, unrated, Under 12 whatever - and you are the highest ranked then you get the title/trophy/cash etc. And whilst we all know that there are imperfect results and countbacks will show you that a little luck came into play etc it's a case of remembering your swings & roundabouts.

My daughter has many well-deserved trophies, some ill-deserved trophies from "lucky" results and many events in which she may have played even better and won nothing. Play enough events and things will fall your way sometimes and rip you off at others. Whoever gets to take a prize home should be able to celebrate doing so.

I can assure you my 6-year old daughter was most happy celebrating her 3rd Under 8 Girl trophy last year, and she didn't even win a game :eek: . But she does want to keep coming to play chess ...

Oepty
05-01-2005, 01:38 PM
Just to clarify my position if you had it confused. I argued strongly for Morrisey to be awarded the title last year in Adelaide and I believe that Yu should get the title if she wants it. It is not her fault that the other stronger female players at Mt Buller, Song and Oliver did not play and other females decided not to go to Mt Buller at all. I believe that as much as possible we should not penalize players who play in event because others chose not to play.
Scott

Libby
05-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Just to clarify my position if you had it confused. I argued strongly for Morrisey to be awarded the title last year in Adelaide and I believe that Yu should get the title if she wants it. It is not her fault that the other stronger female players at Mt Buller, Song and Oliver did not play and other females decided not to go to Mt Buller at all. I believe that as much as possible we should not penalize players who play in event because others chose not to play.
Scott

Hi Scott

No, not confused :confused: Sorry, was actually quoting you in support but I've probably just been more confusing :doh:

I just get sick of people belittling players when they should be able to celebrate a win. The player thmselves well knows they had no-one to beat and probably knows there are many other candidates likely to have scored more points.

But if you advertise a prize, it should be awarded if a candidate is there to win it. You can debate criteria etc for next year but let Sally have her win.

A lot of ill-will was generated in Perth when a whole bunch of trophies were on display for the duration of the event, and then not awarded at the presentation because someone decided there weren't enough entrants to merit handing them out. There is an appropriate time to make that decision, especially with children involved, but after displaying them for nearly 2 weeks the entrants had some right to expect to receive them.

Libby

jeffrei
06-01-2005, 09:04 PM
I wonder whether the perception is that Sally Yu is just to weak to award her the title and it would devalue the title.

Does anyone know what the results of the Australian (Women's) Lightning Championship were? Wasn't that held today? :uhoh:

Recherché
06-01-2005, 09:43 PM
You have to be in it to win it. I think Sally deserves the Australian Open Women's Rapidplay Champion title. The responsibility for the lack of other female participants does not lie with her.

jenni
06-01-2005, 09:58 PM
Does anyone know what the results of the Australian (Women's) Lightning Championship were? Wasn't that held today? :uhoh:

Angela and Sally tied and Shannon behind them - that is all I know.

Recherché
06-01-2005, 10:09 PM
^ So much for "just too weak".

jenni
06-01-2005, 10:25 PM
^ So much for "just too weak".

I think you have to look at what the tournament is and when it comes to Rapid and Blitz the smaller they are,the better,is my rule of thumb. So while Saly might be weaker than the other 2 girls in long time controls, she is equal or better the faster the time control gets. Shannon had no desire to play the Rapid, becasue she doesn't like fast time controls. She didn't mind playing the Blitz because it is fun. All credit to Sally for giving it a go and I think she deserves her trophy and "title" from the Rapid.

Recherché
06-01-2005, 10:45 PM
I think you have to look at what the tournament is and when it comes to Rapid and Blitz the smaller they are,the better,is my rule of thumb. So while Saly might be weaker than the other 2 girls in long time controls, she is equal or better the faster the time control gets. Shannon had no desire to play the Rapid, becasue she doesn't like fast time controls. She didn't mind playing the Blitz because it is fun. All credit to Sally for giving it a go and I think she deserves her trophy and "title" from the Rapid.
^ Well, the title(s) are specifically for the faster time controls, and "weakness" or lack thereof should therefore be judged on performance under those time controls rather than at longer ones. :)

General comment:

People can debate the merits of blitz and rapid (personally I dislike short time controls), but there's nothing "only" about them - they're hard. The younger juniors aren't just good at blitz by accident; they practise at it more than most people do, and accordingly reap the benefits.

(Of course, you can argue that it gets in the way of development at standard time controls, but that's a separate issue, and one I don't consider myself qualified to offer an opinion on.)

auriga
07-01-2005, 09:00 AM
I wonder whether the perception is that Sally Yu is just to weak to award her the title and it would devalue the title.


if we don't award the title we value it at just that - zero
whereas the sole participant actually gives it some actual value in 2004.

imho, not awarding because of the 'too weak' argument is a by-law cop out.

hypothically, if none of our 6 women over 2000 played in the next 5-10 years
would we still send an olympiad team or award any title?! of course we would.
the strength (ratings) are irrelevant - participation is more important.

i think the acf should try to build up some momentum with womens chess
(rather than ignore it or cancel it every second year or so!)

award a better trophy, better prize in womens grand prix,
activity requirement to represent country overseas, press release showing actually pictures of winners to journalists/webmasters, motivators to particpate eg. free entry, more women as arbiters/organisers, etc.

jenni
07-01-2005, 09:12 AM
more women as arbiters/organisers, etc.
I think this is an important point. In the ACT we run girls' dev days and we try and have all female coaches where possible. It has a dual role - it develops the stronger girls as coaches, gives them an incentive to remain involved and provides a role model for the less experienced girls. We are not talking about mega-expertise here. Tamzin worked as a coach at a Dev Day last year. She was more than competent to coach a small beginner group.

auriga
07-01-2005, 09:58 AM
I think this is an important point. In the ACT we run girls' dev days and we try and have all female coaches where possible. It has a dual role - it develops the stronger girls as coaches, gives them an incentive to remain involved and provides a role model for the less experienced girls. We are not talking about mega-expertise here. Tamzin worked as a coach at a Dev Day last year. She was more than competent to coach a small beginner group.

up at the excellent coffs harbour tournament this year
there was a darts competition running next door.
somebody pointed out the difference in the tournaments.

the darts had their own bar open (drunk more).
they had alot more women playing (admittedly on the sat was the teams and women seem to prefer team games - don't they?!)
the person reading out the pairings was also a woman.

any passers by had a quite a good impression with a woman as the main organiser. if you check out the darts website you'll see they have 30% women playing! you see it on foxtel too and there's alot of women watching.
i don't know what chess can take from this.

jenni
07-01-2005, 12:48 PM
they had alot more women playing (admittedly on the sat was the teams and women seem to prefer team games - don't they?!)
.

I think they just enjoy the company. Shannon joined the Uni of NSW team for the Aus Teams championships and had a wonderful time. She was really looking forward to Mt Buller - her first Aus Open and to be quite honest she has had a miserable time socially and I don't think will play again. One wonders if the same was not true of Sylvia Shields? She played the teams in 2003, had a great social time and played in the Reserves at the Aus Champs in Adelaide, but has not been seen since.

WhiteElephant
07-01-2005, 01:02 PM
I think they just enjoy the company. Shannon joined the Uni of NSW team for the Aus Teams championships and had a wonderful time. She was really looking forward to Mt Buller - her first Aus Open and to be quite honest she has had a miserable time socially and I don't think will play again. One wonders if the same was not true of Sylvia Shields? She played the teams in 2003, had a great social time and played in the Reserves at the Aus Champs in Adelaide, but has not been seen since.

It would be a shame if Shannon made the decision not to play in future Aus Championships based on her social experience at Buller. Due to the isolation and cost of the place, I would say it would attract the die hard chess nuts rather than the more social crowd that would be around in major capital cities. Maybe she should try another one in a major city and then make the decision - I always used to love playing in Aus Juniors / Aus Championships because I got to meet new people, got invited over to their place, the locals would show me around the new city, etc. This unfortunately isn't possible at Buller.

W.E.

jenni
07-01-2005, 01:34 PM
It would be a shame if Shannon made the decision not to play in future Aus Championships based on her social experience at Buller. Due to the isolation and cost of the place, I would say it would attract the die hard chess nuts rather than the more social crowd that would be around in major capital cities. Maybe she should try another one in a major city and then make the decision - I always used to love playing in Aus Juniors / Aus Championships because I got to meet new people, got invited over to their place, the locals would show me around the new city, etc. This unfortunately isn't possible at Buller.

W.E.

She is actually a bit of a chess fanatic, so I am hoping she will want to carry on playing. The juniors and the Aus Champs will be combined (or rather on at the same time :) ), next year, so I think it will be easy to talk her into going with us. After that I am hopeful Gareth (her brother) will want to play the Aus Open and that will make it more fun for her.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2005, 10:41 PM
^ So much for "just too weak".
I never mentioned anything about the strength of the player.
I raised the qiestion about awarding it when there is only one competitor.

arosar
08-01-2005, 08:54 AM
Of course it should not be awarded! How stupid is that? How much brainpower does this take to figure out for cryin' out loud? FMD!!

AR

Oepty
08-01-2005, 02:09 PM
I think they just enjoy the company. Shannon joined the Uni of NSW team for the Aus Teams championships and had a wonderful time. She was really looking forward to Mt Buller - her first Aus Open and to be quite honest she has had a miserable time socially and I don't think will play again. One wonders if the same was not true of Sylvia Shields? She played the teams in 2003, had a great social time and played in the Reserves at the Aus Champs in Adelaide, but has not been seen since.

I felt quite sorry for Sylvia Pleskot, as I believe her name now is, as she was the only female in the tournament and I to think it is no coincidence she has not played since.
Scott

Brian_Jones
09-01-2005, 09:38 PM
Some years ago it was very common to see female arbiters in Sydney.
I remember Narelle Kellner, Susan Margan and Nancy Jones all as arbiters in the late 1980's. It is now time to put more emphasis on female participation in all aspects of chess.