PDA

View Full Version : New years wish list 2-Is the oz champs an old dog?



firegoat7
12-01-2005, 01:45 PM
Hello everyone,

This is one of my favorite hobby horses, but i thought I would bring it up again. The Australian Championship is a tired old dog that needs to be revitalised.

To begin, its format is outdated and not dynamic enough. I have labored this point on previous posts, so I will not go into any major details here.

I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

Will the ACF ever do something about this archaic institution?

Cheers FG7

pballard
13-01-2005, 04:24 PM
Hello everyone,

This is one of my favorite hobby horses, but i thought I would bring it up again. The Australian Championship is a tired old dog that needs to be revitalised.

To begin, its format is outdated and not dynamic enough. I have labored this point on previous posts, so I will not go into any major details here.

I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

Will the ACF ever do something about this archaic institution?

Cheers FG7

I haven't seen your earlier posts, so I'll just try to play it straight...

The format as it is seems to serve its purpose: anyone with even the faintest chance of winning gets in, as do a fair smattering of players with no realistic chance of winning but who nevertheless help to make it a reasonably strong competition. And the field is small enough to not contain patzers, and for most of the contenders to play each other.

Your complaint, I assume, is that if you're not a junior and you're in a state where you have little chance of winning its championship, then you have to get in on ratings. But since it is usually only juniors who are improving and underrated, I don't see a problem.

As for the performances of adult Victorian players at the Aus Open: what's the rating cutoff for entry to an Aus Championship these days... about 2100? I wasn't at Mt. Buller, but looking at the results, I can't see anyone rated over 2100 (or even 2000) who disgraced themselves.

--
Peter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 04:30 PM
what's the rating cutoff for entry to an Aus Championship these days... about 2100?
It is currently 2150.

pballard
13-01-2005, 04:57 PM
It is currently 2250.

Has that changed? I guessed 2100 after looking at the entry list of the 2003-4 championships at www.unichess.org.

Anyway, it seems I misinterpreted FG's complaint. I think FG is saying that a number of 2000-ish adults did well in the Aus Open but have no realistic chance of playing in the next Aus Championship. Is that correct?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 05:44 PM
Has that changed?
Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.


I guessed 2100 after looking at the entry list of the 2003-4 championships at www.unichess.org.
Where is that list on the unichess website.
Barber and Wright got in as State Champions.
Rej was the current Aus Junior champ and Szuveges the previous womens champ.
The others applied under either 2b, 3g (improving junior) or 3h (overseas player) of By-law 1 and were accepted.


Anyway, it seems I misinterpreted FG's complaint. I think FG is saying that a number of 2000-ish adults did well in the Aus Open but have no realistic chance of playing in the next Aus Championship. Is that correct?
They can always apply under section 2 b of By-law 1 b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.

shaun
13-01-2005, 06:23 PM
While I agree with David B. on this I'm not sure my proposed solution will please him much.
I would like to see the Aus champs use (in part) the BCF approach allowing players to qualify from other tournaments. Apart from all the existing qualifiers (previous reserves winner, junior champ(s), womens champ, previous champion, anyone over 2100) other players could qualify via state tournaments.
Each state is allowed to qualify 3 players via: (A) State Championship (1 player, must be winner); (B) winner of specified tournament (can be from any state, must be weekend event); (C) best placed local player in a specified event (must be resident of the hosting state, should be weekender). If the eligible player does not enter the championship the place cannot be transferred. If a player already qualifies, their place cannot be transferred.
For example the ACT would have a State Championship and nominate the Doeberl Cup as their (B) qualifier and the ANU Open as their (C) qualifier.
Of course this favours the weaker states over the stronger ones but it may encourage players to ambush the Tas open (for example) to qualify for the Aus champs.

Oepty
13-01-2005, 07:19 PM
Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.


Where is that list on the unichess website.
Barber and Wright got in as State Champions.
Rej was the current Aus Junior champ and Szuveges the previous womens champ.
The others applied under either 2b, 3g (improving junior) or 3h (overseas player) of By-law 1 and were accepted.


They can always apply under section 2 b of By-law 1 b. is deemed by the ACF Council to be of an equivalent level of proficiency is entitled to play in the Australian Chess Championship.

I think Thaw got in to make even numbers as he was going to be top seed in the reserves. Wright was the previous reserves champion, not a state champion.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 08:09 PM
I think Thaw got in to make even numbers as he was going to be top seed in the reserves. Wright was the previous reserves champion, not a state champion.
You are correct, Wright was the winner of the previous Reserves. It was Jovanovic who was the ACT Champion.
Also as you noted Thaw was allowed in to remove the bye.

Ian Rout
13-01-2005, 08:20 PM
fg has half a point - only half, as he seems to be more concerned about how many Victorians get into the Australian Championship than what sensible criteria or applications of crieria should be. If some analysis was presented showing the performances of players admitted under various criteria the case would be more credible. For instance if players admitted on rating tended to finish towards the top there would be a case for lowering the floor, or at least applying it less strictly.

I think it's part of a broader issue of what facilities exist for "elite" chess. How often do the top and the rising players meet each other, or top players from other countries? Maybe Accor or other sponsors might be interested in sponsoring a QVB-type event (for those who remember it) with an IM/GM group, along with an Open to fill rooms.

Developing top players, e.g. Greg Norman in golf, or Anand in India for a chess example, tends to trickle down and promote interest so I think this sort of area, unlike fg's other one, is something to look at.


For example the ACT would have a State Championship and nominate the Doeberl Cup as their (B) qualifier and the ANU Open as their (C) qualifier.

Surely there is a flaw here. Why would ACT waste a drawcard like this, when the Doeberl winner is certain to be an already qualified player? Wouldn't ACT nominate Vikings as its Group B event?

pballard
14-01-2005, 09:12 AM
Sorry I typed it wrong, its 2150.


2250 did sound a bit too stringent to me. 2150 sounds reasonable.



Where is that list on the unichess website.


Sorry, I found it via google and just assumed it was easy to find from www.unichess.org. They need a site map. Anyway, the url for the last championships is http://www.unichess.org/championships.htm from which you can find entry list, results etc.

--
Peter

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 11:05 AM
Hello,

Look I basically agree with Shaun's and Ian's positions. All I am really saying is that the champ format needs to be changed to be more dynamic!!

I like the basics of Shauns model, but i would go further. 1/ I would seed the top 16 from previous championships. 2/ I would not give automatic entry based on rating without an activity clause (ie 50 games in two years etc). 3/ I like Shauns ideas of qualifiers, state champs etc, anu open, grand prix events etc, but I would not allow them direct entry into the champs, instead I think Ians ideas of a high quality elite qualifying tournament makes sense- (see the point is to do well when you get there, not to be satisfied for just getting there.)- In other words you qualify for say a shot at 16 spots out of 32.

I view the problem of the Australian Championship as a rotation concern. And Ian, I am not really concerned about the Victorian perspective per se. I use Victorian players as a basis of my arguements only because I am familiar with these players. I suspect that QLD has very similar problems. Darryl Johansen has been Victorian state champ 10 times, Does anybody know the score for Stephen Solomon?

What annoys me the most about the current format is that you see players like Dragiceviic and Pecori busting their balls and playing in heaps of chess tournaments, thus making Australian chess stronger. These type of players are strong players, they just lack the consistency of the top flighters. You can see from their games(didn't Dragicevic beat Rogers at doeberl and finish third in the Vic champs) that they are capable of mixing it. But come championship time they are told "you are not strong enough, go play in the seconds fellas". Which of course puts them behind the pack again because the top flighters have just played in another closed elite tournament and gained even more valuable experience.

Instead, the ACF lets in some promising juniors (who by the way have access to world selection events) or even worse some old war horse, who only trots out for the champs every two years, cause like "hey I used to be keen and strong, but now its just a hobby". I think everybody here knows which sort of player is better for Australian chess, its the dynamic active ones the sort of players who make events like Mt Buller a success.

So this is why I think Shaun, Ian and I are probably in agreement about the championship, people can see that their are some serious flaws in the current formula. All we really need to do is nut out the details of how an alternative would work in practice.

Any comments?

cheers FG7

pax
14-01-2005, 12:37 PM
I like the basics of Shauns model, but i would go further. 1/ I would seed the top 16 from previous championships. 2/ I would not give automatic entry based on rating without an activity clause (ie 50 games in two years etc). 3/ I like Shauns ideas of qualifiers, state champs etc, anu open, grand prix events etc, but I would not allow them direct entry into the champs, instead I think Ians ideas of a high quality elite qualifying tournament makes sense- (see the point is to do well when you get there, not to be satisfied for just getting there.)- In other words you qualify for say a shot at 16 spots out of 32.


If you have an extra qualifying tournament, you will simply make it near impossible for many players to play. Most Australian players have to take two weeks off work to play the championships as it is. Asking players to play a further extended tournament to qualify is crazy. Furthermore the logistical difficulties for player e.g from WA would be doubled.

The state championships are elite events. What is the problem with an automatic qualification? It is perfectly natural for the state champions to have the opportunity to vie for the national title.

Perhaps you have a problem with a player from (for example) the Tasmanian Championships qualifying directly at the expense of a possibly stronger player from NSW or Vic? In my opinion, this is a good thing, as it ensures that players from all parts of the country have the opportunity to compete.

It is no different in principle to having automatic qualifiers for the FIDE WC from the Oceania Zonal. Those players help make it a truly worldwide event. It's not simply about it being as strong as possible.

Pax

Ian Rout
14-01-2005, 12:53 PM
As I said previously I think fg has a point or part of one, and it's certainly reasonable to look at whether there are black spots in the qualification process. In the past we have heard that practically the entire population of Victoria is better than, e.g. the ACT Champion, which can't be taken too seriously. If however the argument is more focussed and sensible than it should be looked at.

One issue is whether the Championship in it's current form serves a point at all - does it fall between two stools by not being completely accessible but also not completely elite? Swiss tournaments are inherently dodgy because players play different fields. This being the case there is an argument to accept that it's not entirely about absolute truth and look to a variant of Shaun's model of qualifiers. Or maybe the Aust Champion should be just the highest scorer in the Australian Open, which could be held annually, with Masters-type tournaments as the elite events.

Incidentally I note that D. Dragicevic, mentioned as a deserving player who could be excluded, has a rating of 2122 on the latest list so should hit the magic 2150. That's the difference between the big cities and the provinces, even if a player in Canberra was of generally 2150 strength they would, unless they went into hibernation, be playing fields where one blunder would set their rating back six months but with no opportunity for quick gains - you have more chance of playing a werewolf than an IM in a Canberra chess club.

arosar
14-01-2005, 12:54 PM
Perhaps you have a problem with a player from (for example) the Tasmanian Championships qualifying directly at the expense of a possibly stronger player from NSW or Vic? In my opinion, this is a good thing, as it ensures that players from all parts of the country have the opportunity to compete.

Yeah, but his aim is to have the best qualified players based on performance. He's not necessarily concerned with country-wide representation. I agree with fg7's idea.


It's not simply about it being as strong as possible.

But it should be.

AR

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 01:02 PM
Yeah, but his aim is to have the best qualified players based on performance.
On that basis you could just have a strict rating cut-off with no exceptions.


But it should be.
Actually would not the main aim be to ensure that all legitimate contenders for the title can compete.

arosar
14-01-2005, 01:16 PM
Actually would not the main aim be to ensure that all legitimate contenders for the title can compete.

Of course! But by a particular definition according to fg7.

AR

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 01:26 PM
Of course! But by a particular definition according to fg7.
The current system ensures that all legitimate contenders can compete.

arosar
14-01-2005, 01:28 PM
The current system ensures that all legitimate contenders can compete.

Really?

AR

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 01:44 PM
Really?
Name a player who could possibly have had a realistic chance of winning it who did not automatically qualify on rating in any of the last 10 Aus Championships.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 01:48 PM
Yes you are right in certain modelling Bill, In Europe this would be no real problem since players can easily play in strong tournament events, but i think Australia is an exception.


On that basis you could just have a strict rating cut-off with no exceptions.

See the problem is the gene pool. It becomes in bred, thus weakening Australian Chess. Strictly going on rating becomes self- serving because people improve by playing in the OZ champs, hence the hierarchy re-establishes itself. I think 11 games against strong opposition ought to only improve players, not make them weaker.

That being the case we get back to square one again, it takes a superhuman effort for an adult to get into the Australian Championship, since even in Victoria and NSW, tournaments lack quantity at the top (+2000). To suggest that all juniors, state championships and adult qualifiers are on the same level playing field for qualification is simply ridiculous.

Therefore if the ACF wants to run 'elite' Australian Championships they should aim for the "best" players. "Best" players ought to be dynamic (not just on rating), because you need some turnover. Furthermore, dynamic needs to include some measurement of activity since Australian chess becomes weaker (as a whole) if players don't play. Numbers are important. How do you get them? By offering incentives to play chess!
Lets face it all chessplayers are reasonably egotistical and ambitous are'nt they?

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 02:05 PM
fg7,

If I understand your position correctly you think the opportunity should be there for more active but not quite as highly rated players to play in the Aus Ch. Not because they are serious contenders of winning the thing, but because the experience of doing so will strengthen them and thereby Aus chess in general.

If that is right then the Aus Champ is not really the issue, any tournament of a similar strength would suffice. Perhaps an organiser with some ideas in this direction should approach the ACF with a proposal.

My position is that the Aus Ch should be inclusive of all member federations and therefore if the inclusion of weaker state champions stops a stronger Vic or NSW player from playing (even though that player has no real aspirations of winning the event) then that is reasonable price to pay for inclusivity.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 02:08 PM
See the problem is the gene pool. It becomes in bred, thus weakening Australian Chess. Strictly going on rating becomes self- serving because people improve by playing in the OZ champs, hence the hierarchy re-establishes itself.
Thats clearly false otherwise players below the "elite" would never enter the "elite".


Therefore if the ACF wants to run 'elite' Australian Championships they should aim for the "best" players. "Best" players ought to be dynamic (not just on rating), because you need some turnover.
"Best" is very subjective.
The rating system shows who are the "best" on an objective basis.
The ratings cut-off of 2150 allows all the "best" players to compete.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 02:43 PM
My position is that the Aus Ch should be inclusive of all member federations and therefore if the inclusion of weaker state champions stops a stronger Vic or NSW player from playing (even though that player has no real aspirations of winning the event) then that is reasonable price to pay for inclusivity.

The problem with your position is that it subsidises mediocre performances at the expense of serious effort. I don't care where a player plays chess, everyone in the field could be a Tasmanian ( :eek: ) for all I care. :evil:


Thats clearly false otherwise players below the "elite" would never enter the "elite". Well it is not clearly false at all. If you cannot understand how difficult it is to get your rating up, when your denied opportunities to play in tournaments that can bump up your rating, then your naive. I mean, could you imagine a Tasmainian player actually trying to enter the tournament on rating alone based from playing in the state? Furthermore, show me some examples of adult players who have got into the Oz champs based on ratings alone? Are you seriously saying that these players never had to slog it out to reach that pinnacle? Maybe just maybe the barrier is to high in OZ.

I think if you were to do a serious analysis of it Bill? you would find that the elite players protect their ratings because they understand that playing in 'weaker' tournaments risks rating points. This is a tournament organisers lament!

All I am really saying to you is that rating alone is not good enough for enlargiing the pool of "elite" players because you lose dynamics. Under a rating only system their can be no Trevor Tao's or Alan Goldsmiths!! and chess is the worse for that, it needs some magic!

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 02:47 PM
fg7 when mixing quotes from multiple posters perhaps you should make it clear who you are quoting as the first quote above is not mine.

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 02:49 PM
The problem with your position is that it subsidises mediocre performances at the expense of serious effort. I don't care where a player plays chess, everyone in the field could be a Tasmanian ( :eek: ) for all I care. :evil:

I think winning any state championship requires effort, obviously some more than ohers depending on population and strength of local chess scene.

But why pick on the Aust Ch? If any tourny of similar strength would serve your purposes then surely another solution would be to organise another of these sometime in the two years between Aus Ch's. This would do more as it would promote even more strong chessplay in Australia while at the same time not compromise the inclusivity of the Aus Ch.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 02:50 PM
I am well aware of that, Does it really matter? R the ideas more important or the person saying them?

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 02:55 PM
But why pick on the Aust Ch?
Quite simply, it ought to be the best tournament possible.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 02:56 PM
Furthermore, it reflects on the Australian chess scene as a whole.

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 03:06 PM
Quite simply, it ought to be the best tournament possible.

But best by whose definition?

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 03:14 PM
Well it is not clearly false at all.
Of course its false.
If you cannot see it then its not my problem.


If you cannot understand how difficult it is to get your rating up, when your denied opportunities to play in tournaments that can bump up your rating, then your naive.
I think I understand the rating system much better than you and how hard or otherwise it is to increase your rating.


I mean, could you imagine a Tasmainian player actually trying to enter the tournament on rating alone based from playing in the state?
I said all players with a realistic chance of winning the title can get in via rating.
The facts some players can get in via other means is irrelevant to that argument.


Furthermore, show me some examples of adult players who have got into the Oz champs based on ratings alone?
You cannot be serious.
Just look at the last Aus Championship in Adelaide.
The following players all got in on rating:

1. Rogers, Ian NSW 2610
2. Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2489
3. Lane, Gary W NSW 2380
4. Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2363
5. Smerdon, David C VIC 2348
6. Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2327
7. Tao, Trevor SA 2327
8. Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2321
9. Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2300
10. Blazkova, Petra OS 2259
11. Chapman, Mark SA 2239
12. Reilly, Tim NSW 2239
13. Xie, George NSW 2239
14. Levi, Eddy L VIC 2202
15. Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2201
16. Boyd, Tristan WA 2179


Are you seriously saying that these players never had to slog it out to reach that pinnacle?
I never suggested that at all. But the Oz championship is just one event held once ever two years. They got there ratings up by consistently playing well in others events. It was that consistency and their rating based on it that gets them automatic entry.


Maybe just maybe the barrier is to high in OZ.
2150 isnt too high.


I think if you were to do a serious analysis of it Bill? you would find that the elite players protect their ratings because they understand that playing in 'weaker' tournaments risks rating points.
Perhaps you should explain that to Ian Rogers or possibly George Xie who dont seem to have too much trouble maintaining their ratings and still playing in "weaker" events.


All I am really saying to you is that rating alone is not good enough for enlargiing the pool of "elite" players because you lose dynamics.
If they are serious contenders for the title then their rating would be high enough. If it isnt high enough then they arent serious contenders for the title.


Under a rating only system their can be no Trevor Tao's or Alan Goldsmiths!! and chess is the worse for that, it needs some magic!
Tao got into the last Aus Championship on rating alone.
Alan Goldsmith wouldnt have, but I doubt anyone would have argued he was a serious contender for the title.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 03:17 PM
But best by whose definition?
Isnt it obvious. By fg7's of course. ;)

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 05:19 PM
Of course its false.
If you cannot see it then its not my problem. Its not false BG, you simply have one blinkered way of viewing the world, try looking at the world through a different lense once in a while.



I think I understand the rating system much better than you and how hard or otherwise it is to increase your rating. I agree you understand the rating system better then me, but hey thats a statement not an arguement and bears little resemblence to what we are talking about. By the way you split this thread by talking it along these lines. All you have to say is that you are against any other form of qualifying for the Aus champs. I'm not and I don't think the majoriity are in this debate.



I said all players with a realistic chance of winning the title can get in via rating.
The facts some players can get in via other means is irrelevant to that argument. no its not it has everything to do with the arguement, the point is the opportunity for the individual and what happens long term to the Australian chess pool.



You cannot be serious.
Just look at the last Aus Championship in Adelaide.
The following players all got in on rating:

1. Rogers, Ian NSW 2610
2. Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2489
3. Lane, Gary W NSW 2380
4. Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2363
5. Smerdon, David C VIC 2348
6. Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2327
7. Tao, Trevor SA 2327
8. Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2321
9. Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2300
10. Blazkova, Petra OS 2259
11. Chapman, Mark SA 2239
12. Reilly, Tim NSW 2239
13. Xie, George NSW 2239
14. Levi, Eddy L VIC 2202
15. Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2201
16. Boyd, Tristan WA 2179

Your obviously not following the thread here because their ratings know is not the issue. Its when they first get in the event, put it in its correct context.



2150 isnt too high. maybe, maybe not


Perhaps you should explain that to Ian Rogers or possibly George Xie who dont seem to have too much trouble maintaining their ratings and still playing in "weaker" events. You really are not following this thread Bill, I have no problem with players who are active and have a high rating. Your comments make little sense in light of what we have been discussing on this thread.



If they are serious contenders for the title then their rating would be high enough. If it isnt high enough then they arent serious contenders for the title. Read the thread before putting your foot in your mouth



Tao got into the last Aus Championship on rating alone.
Alan Goldsmith wouldnt have, but I doubt anyone would have argued he was a serious contender for the title. Probably the worst post you have ever contributed Bill, not one coherent statement in regards to the context of the thread. This is not a ratings thread Bill, it is a different discussion
:wall:

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 05:43 PM
Its not false BG, you simply have one blinkered way of viewing the world, try looking at the world through a different lense once in a while.
If anyone has a blinkered view of the world it would be you.


I agree you understand the rating system better then me, but hey thats a statement not an arguement and bears little resemblence to what we are talking about. By the way you split this thread by talking it along these lines. All you have to say is that you are against any other form of qualifying for the Aus champs. I'm not and I don't think the majoriity are in this debate.
The question is admission to the Australian Championship.
I'm suggesting it could just be based on rating and all those with a realistic chance of winning the title would be eligible.


no its not it has everything to do with the arguement, the point is the opportunity for the individual and what happens long term to the Australian chess pool.
The opportunites are there in other tournaments for players to get their ratings up to the 2150 level.
If they can do that then they automatically qualify.
In fact the incentive for those who are below the 2150 level is to get their ratings to 2150 and get automatic entry.

Your obviously not following the thread here because their ratings know is not the issue. Its when they first get in the event, put it in its correct context.
Who says that is the correct context. You. That doesnt make it so.


maybe, maybe not
There are currently 48 active players over 2150. 2150 isnt too high.

You really are not following this thread Bill, I have no problem with players who are active and have a high rating. Your comments make little sense in light of what we have been discussing on this thread.
Now you are trying to change it to active players but thats not what you were talking about.
My comment was relevant and on topic because it related directly to your claim that "elite players protect their rating by avoiding "weaker" events". I pointed out taht not all "elite" players have that view by citing Roegsr and Xie.


Read the thread before putting your foot in your mouth
The thread is about the Australian Championship. You expressed your view, i'm expressing mine and I'm saying that the current structure allows all those with a realistic chance of winning the title to be able to compete.


Probably the worst post you have ever contributed Bill,
Only in your opinion because I dont agree with you.
If we want to criticise posts then this is just a rehash of your posts on the subject on the old ACF board which were discussed at length then.


not one coherent statement in regards to the context of the thread. This is not a ratings thread Bill, it is a different discussion :wall:
No one suggested its a rating thread.
Its about entry into the Australian Championship.
I'm just suggesting that an objective, non subjective method of determining entry for the Aus Championship is ratings.
In fact the current structure with its current 2150 cut-off allows for all those with a realistic chance of winning the title to play in the Aus Championship.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 05:56 PM
Show me the mathematical formula upon which you base this ridiculous statement big shot


In fact the current structure with its current 2150 cut-off allows for all those with a realistic chance of winning the tuitlte to play in the Aus Championship.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 06:02 PM
Out of context



Now you are trying to change it to active players but thats not what you were talking about.
My comment was relevant and on topic because it related directly to your claim that "elite players protect their rating by avoiding "weaker" events". I pointed out taht not all "elite" players have that view by citing Roegsr and Xie.

If I remember correctly a tournament organisers lament was the correct context, you might want to consider the statement within the boundaries of 'old war horses'... that is if u can be bothered to read the thread.

I have been talking about active players all along, read the thread!!!


:wall:

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 06:19 PM
Out of context
It wasnt out of context at all.


If I remember correctly a tournament organisers lament was the correct context, you might want to consider the statement within the boundaries of 'old war horses'... that is if u can be bothered to read the thread.

I have been talking about active players all along, read the thread!!! :wall:
Your original comment made no mention of "old war horses".
Your exact wording in the post was:

I think if you were to do a serious analysis of it Bill? you would find that the elite players protect their ratings because they understand that playing in 'weaker' tournaments risks rating points. This is a tournament organisers lament!
Now if as you say you have always been talking about active players then it is clear you are claiming elite "active" players protect their ratings by avoiding "weaker" tournaments.
I'm just pointing out that your statement is not universally correct.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 06:50 PM
Show me the mathematical formula upon which you base this ridiculous statement big shot
I dont think I have referred to you as a goose or a clown in this thread so far, but if thats your attitude then it may quickly change.
I'm basing it on historical data.
Now 2150 is approximately position 50 (actual 48)on the ACF active list.
Show me were a player rated outside the top 50 active players has won the Australian Championship since say 1970.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 07:18 PM
It wasnt out of context at all.


Your original comment made no mention of "old war horses".
Your exact wording in the post was:

Now if as you say you have always been talking about active players then it is clear you are claiming elite "active" players protect their ratings by avoiding "weaker" tournaments.
I'm just pointing out that your statement is not universally correct.

I guess you still refuse to read the thread, how else would u not know about the 'war horses comment'. And stop adding new imaginary premises like " it is clear you are claiming elite"active" players protect their ratings by avoiding "weaker" tournaments. Your the one who is turning into into a universal statement not me. It wasn't meant in that context, for the millionth time.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 07:30 PM
I dont think I have referred to you as a goose or a clown in this thread so far, but if thats your attitude then it may quickly change.
I'm basing it on historical data.
Now 2150 is approximately position 50 (actual 48)on the ACF active list.
Show me were a player rated outside the top 50 active players has won the Australian Championship since say 1970.

Like I suspected you have no mathematical formula for your wrong premise, despite carrying on like you do. Mere stati***ics are not even close to
a mathematical formula which can be relied upon. You show no new relevent empirical evidence for your analysis. In fact your mere statistics are fatally flawed. You cannot base your empirical statistical evidence on an active top 50 winning the Australian championship if to begin with outside chances of winning the tournament, like u2150 are excluded from entry...Can you Bill? It is like saying "all people are women since only women give birth" Doesn't make much sense does it. :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 07:39 PM
I guess you still refuse to read the thread, how else would u not know about the 'war horses comment'.
Your comment about elite players and protecting ratings in post #23 was quite explicit. There is no relationship implied or stated with regards to the "old war horses" you referred to back in post #11.


And stop adding new imaginary premises like " it is clear you are claiming elite"active" players protect their ratings by avoiding "weaker" tournaments.
Well then when you said:

I think if you were to do a serious analysis of it Bill? you would find that the elite players protect their ratings because they understand that playing in 'weaker' tournaments risks rating points. This is a tournament organisers lament!
are the elite players you are referring to active or inactive.
If they are inactive then if as you state you want an activity clause of 50 games in a two year period (in post #11) in the criteria then they wouldnt get in anyway due to lack of activity.
If they are active then my comment above including the word "active" is valid.


Your the one who is turning into into a universal statement not me. It wasn't meant in that context, for the millionth time.
Then obviously the context you meant it in was unclear.

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 08:09 PM
Then obviously the context you meant it in was unclear.
How much context do u want BG? Do I have to trawl through the whole thread simply because you cannot be bothered reading it?



Context Post 1- I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

Post 11- What annoys me the most about the current format is that you see players like Dragiceviic and Pecori busting their balls and playing in heaps of chess tournaments, thus making Australian chess stronger. These type of players are strong players, they just lack the consistency of the top flighters. You can see from their games(didn't Dragicevic beat Rogers at doeberl and finish third in the Vic champs) that they are capable of mixing it. But come championship time they are told "you are not strong enough, go play in the seconds fellas". Which of course puts them behind the pack again because the top flighters have just played in another closed elite tournament and gained even more valuable experience.

Post 20- Yes you are right in certain modelling Bill, In Europe this would be no real problem since players can easily play in strong tournament events, but i think Australia is an exception.

Now Bill surely you understand the context from which I am arguing. Surely when I say 'elite' players protect their ratings, you recognise the theme/ context to which I am referring?

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 08:11 PM
And, it must be noted you have not endeavoured to defend your statistics yet. Could it be that you accept my arguement that they are flawed data?

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 08:21 PM
And, it must be noted you have not endeavoured to defend your statistics yet. Could it be that you accept my arguement that they are flawed data?
Not at all.
I contend that any player with a realistic chance to win already has automatic entry.
Now 2150 is approximately position 50 (actual 48) on the ACF active list.
Show me were a player rated outside the top 50 active players has won the Australian Championship since say 1970.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 08:56 PM
How much context do u want BG? Do I have to trawl through the whole thread simply because you cannot be bothered reading it?
I had read the whole thread, but consider your use of the term "'elite' players protect their ratings" was far from clear in any other context other than that expressed in post #23.


Context Post 1- I will simply reiterate one position. Consider the preformances of a number of Victorian players (adults) at the recent Australian Open. Then ask yourself if it is fair that 'state champions' and 'promising juniors' get special selection criteria whilst every other adult who does not get in on ratings competes for one spot with a two year time delay.

Post 11- What annoys me the most about the current format is that you see players like Dragiceviic and Pecori busting their balls and playing in heaps of chess tournaments, thus making Australian chess stronger. These type of players are strong players, they just lack the consistency of the top flighters. You can see from their games(didn't Dragicevic beat Rogers at doeberl and finish third in the Vic champs) that they are capable of mixing it. But come championship time they are told "you are not strong enough, go play in the seconds fellas". Which of course puts them behind the pack again because the top flighters have just played in another closed elite tournament and gained even more valuable experience.

Post 20- Yes you are right in certain modelling Bill, In Europe this would be no real problem since players can easily play in strong tournament events, but i think Australia is an exception.

Now Bill surely you understand the context from which I am arguing. Surely when I say 'elite' players protect their ratings, you recognise the theme/ context to which I am referring?
To me its seems your views are distorted by your apparent antipathy to anything smacking of elitism.
However for an event like the Australian Championship a fair degree of elitism would seem to be entirely reasonable.

The current system allows all those with a realistic chance of winning to compete due automatic entry via rating.
On top of that it allows the previous winner, the Junior champ, the Women's champ, the previous reserves winner and the various State Champions automatic entry. This rewards those winning recognised titles to participate.

Now juniors (who can improve rather quickly) can apply for entry. If they are deemed to be of sufficient standard then they are accepted. This is reasonable.
Likewise adults who can apply will be accepted if they are of sufficient standard. One situation this allows for is where a player was above the rating cutoff in the ratings prior to the december list but due to recent results have dropped below the rating cutoff. This is reasonable.

Paul S
14-01-2005, 11:56 PM
Brian Jones made a good suggestion some time ago.

If I remember correctly, Brian said something along the lines that with Queenstown January 2006 almost certain to attract a lot of overseas players, that the 2005/2006 Australian event should be run as an Open (and that if this was done that overseas players who would like to use it as a "warm up" for Queenstown would be attracted).

What does it matter if this Open/Closed cycle gets "out of sync" next year? BTW, what do other countries do? What did the ACF decide at its Conference?

Look, I am no expert on the merits (or non-merits) of this two year Australian Closed/Open cycle. However, from where I sit, Brian Jones' idea makes sense to me!

arosar
15-01-2005, 05:13 AM
Queenstown will be fantastic. Unlike the Ausralian Open this year, which was one BIG moronic laughable stuff up, the Q'town will be an affair to remember. I think many Aussies will save money and forego any Australian event instead and go direct to Q'town.

AR

Rincewind
15-01-2005, 11:27 AM
AR, Good luck in Queenstown. Would now be too soon to leave?

Kerry Stead
15-01-2005, 05:55 PM
You are correct, Wright was the winner of the previous Reserves. It was Jovanovic who was the ACT Champion.
Also as you noted Thaw was allowed in to remove the bye.

Bill, I think you'll find the previous minor winner was Neil Wright ... Ian Wright was the previous year's ACT champion. I believe in Ian's case, both the current and previous ACT champions were allowed into the championship event. Most other states did not have this problem as state champions (Johansen, Canfell, Xie, etc) typically made the rating cutoff with ease.

Garvinator
15-01-2005, 06:24 PM
Queenstown will be fantastic. Unlike the Ausralian Open this year, which was one BIG moronic laughable stuff up, the Q'town will be an affair to remember. I think many Aussies will save money and forego any Australian event instead and go direct to Q'town.

AR
it always helps of course when the qtown tournament has had 18 months to get ready and has not had a complete change of organisers five months out :doh: but of course my argument doesnt help yours, so you wouldnt admit it to your warped outlook on things :hand:

Lets just see how buller 2007 goes in comparison to qtown :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2005, 06:43 PM
Bill, I think you'll find the previous minor winner was Neil Wright ... Ian Wright was the previous year's ACT champion. I believe in Ian's case, both the current and previous ACT champions were allowed into the championship event. Most other states did not have this problem as state champions (Johansen, Canfell, Xie, etc) typically made the rating cutoff with ease.
No. Ian Wright did not play in the Australian Championships 2003-2004. He was not the 2003 or 2002 ACT Champion. Only the 2003 State or Territory champions were allowed automatic entry.
Neil Wright played in the 2003-2004 Australian Championship and was accepted because he was the winner of the 2001-2002 Australian Reserves (not the minor).

Ian Wright got into the 2001-2002 Australian Championship because he was the 2001 ACT Champion (along with 5 others).

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2005, 06:48 PM
Lets just see how buller 2007 goes in comparison to qtown :uhoh:
You guys keep acting like the 2007 Australian Open at Mt. Buller is a forgone conclusion.

You seem to forget that the ACF Council will make that decision, not the current organising committee.
That decision will not happen until a report is received from the steering committee to look at possible future sponsorship with Mecure.

peanbrain
15-01-2005, 07:04 PM
it always helps of course when the qtown tournament has had 18 months to get ready and has not had a complete change of organisers five months out :doh: but of course my argument doesnt help yours, so you wouldnt admit it to your warped outlook on things :hand:

Lets just see how buller 2007 goes in comparison to qtown :uhoh:

here goes again the big mouth ggray. He walked into the job 5 months ago knowing its not going to be easy, but instead of working with others and take in all the good advice, ggray just respond with negative excuses to even the well intentioned ones.

May I suggest to ggray instead of wasting his time responding to every criticism or suggestions with his usual excuses on his BB, he should just use the time to get some sleep or use the time to make some positive changes, like switch the top girls on live boards or something.

peanbrain
15-01-2005, 07:07 PM
Lets just see how buller 2007 goes in comparison to qtown :uhoh:

As long as the current organisers are involved (particularly ggray), I know for certain while we may have a decent looking web site for the 2007 tournament, but crap infomation, no updates, and NO PUBLICITY!! :confused:

Kerry Stead
16-01-2005, 04:47 AM
No. Ian Wright did not play in the Australian Championships 2003-2004. He was not the 2003 or 2002 ACT Champion. Only the 2003 State or Territory champions were allowed automatic entry.
Neil Wright played in the 2003-2004 Australian Championship and was accepted because he was the winner of the 2001-2002 Australian Reserves (not the minor).

Ian Wright got into the 2001-2002 Australian Championship because he was the 2001 ACT Champion (along with 5 others).

That sounds right Bill, I think I was getting my championships confused - was thinking of Melbourne and not Adelaide ...

Ian Rout
16-01-2005, 10:43 AM
No. Ian Wright did not play in the Australian Championships 2003-2004. He was not the 2003 or 2002 ACT Champion. Only the 2003 State or Territory champions were allowed automatic entry.
Neil Wright played in the 2003-2004 Australian Championship and was accepted because he was the winner of the 2001-2002 Australian Reserves (not the minor).

Ian Wright got into the 2001-2002 Australian Championship because he was the 2001 ACT Champion (along with 5 others).
Just to confuse things, here's what I think really happened ...

At the time of the 2001-02 Aust Championship the rule, or the interpretation of the rule, was that the state champions of both the two years since the previous Championship qualified. In this case that was 2000 and 2001.

Ian Wright and Kazimir Kolossovski tied for the 2000 ACT Championship. Since only one player can qualify the normal practice is to hold a play-off match for the place, but in this case Kazimir indicated that he would no longer be in Australia when the Aust Championship came up so no match was required.

In 2001 six players tied so again a playoff would have been required if more than one wanted to take up the place in the Aust Championship. However four players declined and Ian Wright was already qualified from 2000. So the other player, Svetozar Stojic, was ACT's representative from 2001.

Hence Ian played by virtue of being the 2000, not 2001, ACT Champion, though had he not been or had this not been a qualifying place he would have been eligible to participate in a play-off for the 2001 place.

arosar
16-01-2005, 11:46 AM
Lets just see how buller 2007 goes in comparison to qtown :uhoh:

Buller 2007? You gotta be kidding me! It'll be another disaster what with you being involved.

Maybe Bazza here can be a better mouthpiece than you.

AR

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2005, 04:34 PM
Just to confuse things, here's what I think really happened ...

At the time of the 2001-02 Aust Championship the rule, or the interpretation of the rule, was that the state champions of both the two years since the previous Championship qualified. In this case that was 2000 and 2001.

Ian Wright and Kazimir Kolossovski tied for the 2000 ACT Championship. Since only one player can qualify the normal practice is to hold a play-off match for the place, but in this case Kazimir indicated that he would no longer be in Australia when the Aust Championship came up so no match was required.

In 2001 six players tied so again a playoff would have been required if more than one wanted to take up the place in the Aust Championship. However four players declined and Ian Wright was already qualified from 2000. So the other player, Svetozar Stojic, was ACT's representative from 2001.

Hence Ian played by virtue of being the 2000, not 2001, ACT Champion, though had he not been or had this not been a qualifying place he would have been eligible to participate in a play-off for the 2001 place.


Yes; that is right. Before Ian W actually came to play in the event the By-law was changed so that now only the current State/Territory champion qualifies but I had a one-off saving provision put in to ensure that champions such as Ian who had an accrued right to enter, obtained before the amendment was made, could still play.

Denis Jessop

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 06:33 PM
Yes; that is right. Before Ian W actually came to play in the event the By-law was changed so that now only the current State/Territory champion qualifies but I had a one-off saving provision put in to ensure that champions such as Ian who had an accrued right to enter, obtained before the amendment was made, could still play.

Denis Jessop
My recollection is of the ACF Council discussing the fact that By-law 1 made no restriction with regards joint winners. Therefore even without the proviso allowing any State Champions from 2000 to play in the 2001-2002 Aus Champs, that Ian Wright would have qualified under the rule of current State Champion as he was the joint 2001 ACT Champion along with 5 others.

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2005, 08:55 PM
My recollection is of the ACF Council discussing the fact that By-law 1 made no restriction with regards joint winners. Therefore even without the proviso allowing any State Champions from 2000 to play in the 2001-2002 Aus Champs, that Ian Wright would have qualified under the rule of current State Champion as he was the joint 2001 ACT Champion along with 5 others.

I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, for tactical reasons, as ACT delegate I sought, and achieved, the saving provision so as to allow Ian as 2000 winner and Svetozar, as the only willing joint 2001 winner apart from Ian, both to play. A lot of good it did for ACT chess as they have now both flown the coop and gone to Melbourne :evil: :wall:

Denis Jessop

firegoat7
18-01-2005, 08:41 AM
I noticed George Howard is still president on the ACF website, whats happening there?

Lucena
19-01-2005, 03:51 PM
They haven't updated the site completely. Not that unusual. Just look at the previous Aus juniors. The arbiter was going to use tiebreak procedures prescribed on the ACF website, but they were outdated. :doh: And the Fide website used to have out of date regulations on its website.

firegoat7
27-01-2005, 03:44 PM
Hello,

Just a general question in line with this thread. Would the ACF recognise a petition or general submission to change the format of the Australian Championship. Is this possible from the rank and file?

Cheers FG7

Rincewind
27-01-2005, 04:23 PM
Just a general question in line with this thread. Would the ACF recognise a petition or general submission to change the format of the Australian Championship. Is this possible from the rank and file?

I think the normal channel would be to organise for the petition within the state body and to have the petition tabled (and presumably motion for change put forward) by a state delegate. Of course should the lobby group be geographically diverse enough, many state bodies could be worked on simultaneously.

ursogr8
27-01-2005, 04:32 PM
^

Hmm Baz,

I suspect Mexican politics (which has been aired thoroughly on this BB before) may be seen by fg7 as

the first point of 'resistance'

rather than

the first point of 'assistance'


Not that I agree with him.
But it might be the issue he is trying to circumvent by a petition from the rank and file.

starter

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 05:44 PM
Hello,

Just a general question in line with this thread. Would the ACF recognise a petition or general submission to change the format of the Australian Championship. Is this possible from the rank and file?

Cheers FG7
Take it up with your State Association.

firegoat7
27-01-2005, 09:22 PM
So I guess the answer is no. ;)

eclectic
27-01-2005, 10:21 PM
So I guess the answer is no. ;)

FG7,

What makes you think a players' petition would work when for instance the annual players' meeting is only allowed to be attended by preapproved state delegates and whose decisions are not binding on the ACF anyway?

I'd bet on a tsunami swamping Mt Buller before I'd bet on the arch conservative ACF seriously considering a proposal such as yours.

I support it BTW.

Mark

shaun
28-01-2005, 08:31 AM
FG7,

What makes you think a players' petition would work when for instance the annual players' meeting is only allowed to be attended by preapproved state delegates and whose decisions are not binding on the ACF anyway?

And more importantly the playings meeting failed to attract a quorum (15 players) for the Nth year in a row.




I'd bet on a tsunami swamping Mt Buller before I'd bet on the arch conservative ACF seriously considering a proposal such as yours.

I support it BTW.

Mark

Ahh, but such ignorant generalisations. If the ACTCA continue to have me as an ACF council member, David can send his proposals to me and I'll look at putting them forward.
Of course if you feel strongly about the issue, get on the VCA council.

ursogr8
28-01-2005, 08:38 AM
^
VCA has been re-badged as Chess VICTORIA = CV

Skaro lives in Gippsland (too far to travel to CV meetings); and has declared in his signature line that he is steering clear of chess admin.

Denis_Jessop
28-01-2005, 04:39 PM
[QUOTE=shaun]And more importantly the playings meeting failed to attract a quorum (15 players) for the Nth year in a row.

And, for that reason, was abolished, along with the rest of cl.12 of the Constitution by the National Conference on 6 January. It's still open to the ACF or Tournament organisers to hold a players' meeting but the duty to hold one seemed pretty pointless when almost nobody showed any interest.

As for the broader question of players' petitions, they can always petition anyone they like. But unless such a petition is broadly representative and raises a particularly cogent point it's not likely to carry much weight.

Denis Jessop