PDA

View Full Version : Australian Junior structure



Garvinator
23-01-2005, 09:55 PM
During my time at the Australian Juniors, I had the following structure thought and I think it has merit so far, so I will put it up here on the bb and let others comment etc.

One idea of thought of is that the under 18 open could be run as a nine round, accelerated swiss instead of the current monster swiss 11 round format. I noticed that in my opinion the first round was a rather waste of time and a day which could have been better used doing something else.

I think the girls under 18 could be reduced to nine rounds as well. There were only 17 players this time and nine rounds would be generally sufficent to get a decent sorting of the field.

Any other thoughts?

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:05 PM
During my time at the Australian Juniors, I had the following structure thought and I think it has merit so far, so I will put it up here on the bb and let others comment etc.

One idea of thought of is that the under 18 open could be run as a nine round, accelerated swiss instead of the current monster swiss 11 round format. I noticed that in my opinion the first round was a rather waste of time and a day which could have been better used doing something else.

I think the girls under 18 could be reduced to nine rounds as well. There were only 17 players this time and nine rounds would be generally sufficent to get a decent sorting of the field.

Any other thoughts?
There was little to no support from the Junior leagues to reduce the U18 Open from 11 to 9 rounds and the ACF Council rejected the Gurus suggestion to do so.

Alan Shore
23-01-2005, 10:07 PM
One idea of thought of is that the under 18 open could be run as a nine round, accelerated swiss instead of the current monster swiss 11 round format. I noticed that in my opinion the first round was a rather waste of time and a day which could have been better used doing something else.

Well, I have a feeling you already know the disdain I feel for that suggestion given my comments on starter's 'competitive' thread... even so, I would be interested in what the participants felt, rather than the organisers. If we can get some feedback from the players themselves on what they thought about round 1 that would be extremely helpful.

(Don't give up though, I've mentioned before I may concede to more competetive games in long time controls such as 90 60, given sufficient support).

Garvinator
23-01-2005, 10:10 PM
There was little to no support from the Junior leagues to reduce the U18 Open from 11 to 9 rounds and the ACF Council rejected the Gurus suggestion to do so.
what was the thinking on this matter? I am curious. I would have thought that the opportunity to make it nine rounds to reduce accommodation costs and to have the players less involved in the 'junk' rounds would be jumped at.

Am i missing something?

Alan Shore
23-01-2005, 10:16 PM
what was the thinking on this matter? I am curious. I would have thought that the opportunity to make it nine rounds to reduce accommodation costs and to have the players less involved in the 'junk' rounds would be jumped at.

Am i missing something?

I might venture:

1/ It would give a better chance of a clear result (I understand the irony of comparing this to the recently completed juniors, but anyway..)
2/ If you're travelling all that way, the more games the better.
3/ More days for fun activities and holiday atmosphere, as well as having sufficient time to make new friends.

and of course 4/ Players enjoy the upset/(junk) rounds :)

pax
23-01-2005, 10:18 PM
I think 9 rounds is too few with over 80 players, even accelerated. The 1990(?) Junior in Perth was accelerated swiss. Not sure if it was 9 or 11 rounds.

Note that with most accelerated swisses, you still have one or two junk rounds (at the end of the acceleration rather than the first round). It can take just as long for the genuine top competitors to meet.

I have elsewhere proposed a graduated acceleration where there are several acceleration groups at different levels, and the acceleration points are removed gradually over the first three to four rounds. I think it's better than a normal acceleration, but probably 9 rounds is still too few.

To be honest, I don't really think a couple of double round days are that much of a problem. When you use FIDE time controls, nearly all games are finished within three and a half hours. At the old time controls, you could play a six hour session and still have an adjournment after that. Also, many of the international junior comps now have double round days so it is something the top players certainly need to get used to. I admit I don't have the inside perspective that some others may have, beyond the memories of playing some eight hour games as a junior.

Mischa
23-01-2005, 10:23 PM
Many under 12's [remember them?] were not happy with only 9 rounds.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:37 PM
Many under 12's [remember them?] were not happy with only 9 rounds.
Another of the Guru's ideas that was supported by the majority of junior leagues and passed by the ACF Council.

Mischa
23-01-2005, 10:39 PM
Junior leagues? i don't remember anyone asking me or other parents of under 12's what they wanted? Guru or anybody.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:39 PM
what was the thinking on this matter? I am curious. I would have thought that the opportunity to make it nine rounds to reduce accommodation costs and to have the players less involved in the 'junk' rounds would be jumped at.

Am i missing something?
Yes, you are.
The aim of the event is to fnd the Aus Junior champion, not reduce accomodation costs or supposed 'junk' rounds.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:41 PM
Junior leagues? i don't remember anyone asking me or other parents of under 12's what they wanted? Guru or anybody.
Thats because you Mexicans dont have a junior League.

The NSW delegate voted as advised by the NSWJCL. I believe the delegates from the other states were junior leagues exist did likewise.

Mischa
23-01-2005, 10:43 PM
Hmmm...

Garvinator
23-01-2005, 10:48 PM
Yes, you are.
The aim of the event is to fnd the Aus Junior champion, not reduce accomodation costs or supposed 'junk' rounds.
supposed, there is nothing supposed about it. Have a look at round one of this years australian juniors, the average rating differential per game was 700 points. How is that useful in finding who is the best australian junior?

Excluding the Swedish juniors who we werent certain of their correct rating, there wasnt one upset result in the first round. All the higher seeded players won.


No Name Feder Loc Result Name Feder Loc

1 McGuirk, Michael NSW 1475 0:1 Chow, Samuel VIC 2199
2 Yu, Ronald NSW 2092 1:0 Hendrey, Thomas TAS 1474
3 Parravicini, Matthew NSW 1469 0:1 Wei, Michael ACT 2043
4 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2040 1:0 Kaspar, Ric QLD 1450
5 Behne-Smith, David NSW 1420 0:1 Stojic, Dusan VIC 1984
6 Wallis, Christopher VIC 1944 1:0 Beltrami, Matthew ACT 1414
7 Kerksal, David VIC 1389 0:1 Obst, James SA 1942
8 Oliver, Gareth ACT 1931 1:0 Yu, Derek VIC 1388
9 Bennett, Calvin VIC 1362 0:1 Ikeda, Junta ACT 1916
10 Suttor, Vincent NSW 1904 1:0 Ung, Thomas ACT 1348
11 Glenton, Alan VIC 1301 0:1 Jager, Jesse VIC 1895
12 Ly, Moulthun QLD 1881 1:0 Chu, Louis NSW 1300
13 Schon, Eugene VIC 1279 0:1 Hu, Jason NSW 1873
14 Lugo, Ruperto VIC 1845 1:0 Eldridge-Smith, Leif ACT 1228
15 Slack-Smith, Blair WA 1218 0:1 Kimura, Toshi QLD 1843
16 Illingworth, Max NSW 1839 1:0 Zulfic, Fedja SA 1212
17 Taylor, Paul WA 1178 0:1 Lattimore, Tor ACT 1829
18 Lin, Zhigen Wilson VIC 1819 1:0 Lloyd, Aidan ACT 1081
19 Joel, Nathan VIC 1054 0:1 Lindberg, Douglas VIC 1807
20 Wang, Zhengbo WA 1798 1:0 Dalton, Joshua VIC 1053
21 Kenmure, Jamie VIC 909 0:1 Vijayakumar, Rukman VIC 1768
22 Donaldson, Thomas WA 1755 1:0 Barrett, Daniel J (Somerset) QLD 828
23 Kimura, Mikio QLD 732 0:1 Stevens, Tristan SA 1753
24 Huang, Justin NSW 1747 1:0 Jones, Daniel VIC 633
25 Redpath, Nicholas ACT 606 0:1 Rice, Edward VIC 1746
26 Neeman, Jeremy ACT 1730 1:0 Setiabudi, Allen ACT 567
27 Ung, Josephine ACT 464 0:1 Tse, Jeffrey NSW 1729
28 Sreetharan, Kishore ACT 1716 .5:.5 Berggren, Marcus OS 1753
29 Berggren, Patrik OS 1736 1:0 Van Dijk, Devrim VIC 1680
30 Levin, Joshua NSW 1677 0:1 Berggren, Jonathon OS 1539
31 Boleson-Robinson, Tristan VIC 0:1 Anderson, Daniel C QLD 1673
32 Hoang, Khoi ACT 1650 1:0 Brown, Brody TAS
33 Dyer, Alastair TAS 0:1 Viswanath, Ganesh WA 1647
34 Van Heerden, Daniel WA 1631 1:0 Gregoric, Isaiah SA
35 Griffiths, Michael TAS 0:1 Muthusamy, Reubban VIC 1627
36 Tran, Christopher ACT 1596 1:0 Ho, Raynault VIC
37 Lau, Aaron VIC 0:1 Harris, Benjamin NSW 1588
38 Wu, Edwin NSW 1584 1:0 Letcher, Toby VIC
39 Lucas, Daniel VIC 0:1 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab ACT 1578
40 Brown, Andrew ACT 1521 1:0 Ng, Nicholas VIC
41 Priestley, Tom VIC 0:1 Maguire, Jesse ACT 1518
42 Choong, Yita WA 1501 1:0 Priestley, George VIC
43 Smith, Charlie TAS 0:1 Humphries, Ryan WA 1495

Mischa
23-01-2005, 10:53 PM
I have noidea so please explain how reducing the number of rounds will help?

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:56 PM
supposed, there is nothing supposed about it. Have a look at round one of this years australian juniors, the average rating differential per game was 700 points. How is that useful in finding who is the best australian junior?

Excluding the Swedish juniors who we werent certain of their correct rating, there wasnt one upset result in the first round. All the higher seeded players won.
So what.
To have any sort of validity you would need to show that this has happened in the first round of the Aus Junior on significantly more than 1 occasion.
Lets say at least the last 10.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:58 PM
I have noidea so please explain how reducing the number of rounds will help?
It wouldnt.
In fact the additional rounds may well help in determining the U16 Champion etc.

Garvinator
23-01-2005, 11:00 PM
I have noidea so please explain how reducing the number of rounds will help?
just reducing the rounds doesnt help at all. it must be combined with what is called acceleration. In very simple terms, basically it is assumed that the higher rated players would have won their first round games using a normal swiss draw. So effectively the first round is skipped and the tournament begins from what would normally be round two.

Any player can still win the tournament from any seeding.

Libby
24-01-2005, 06:42 AM
When George proposed finishing the event on 23/1, the U12s were attending the tournament for the same number of days as the U18, playing 9 rounds, and having 4 rest days!

Another way perhaps to maximise everyone's stay? At least under the DC proposal I saw, they started slightly later so could arrive later & still finish at the same time as the U18.

Slightly ancient history all of that. I think 9 rounds is good for the U12 - every kid at the event is exhausted by the end. At least they skip the doubled rounds which are more prone than most to hurt with upsets.

However - for the girls (U18 or U12), I'd like to see some guidelines on the ratio of rounds to participants. I've seen some ridiculous final 2 or 3 rounds generated by small entries in the Girls U12. In Adelaide, 11 rounds were played (I think) with 15 participants. Not only are the final round pairings ridiculous but there is the opportunity for a highly distorted result when a tiny proportion of players miss out on a bye and your result can be unduly influenced by the particular combination of players you didn't play. It just amplifies every shortcoming in the swiss draw.

It would be nice to have some guidelines across all ACF tournaments to say entries = "x" therefore maximum number of rounds = 7 or 9 or 11. The girls in particular, often appear to fall into a grey area between enough for a decent swiss and too many for a round robin.

Other solution is for all states to promote chess better for girls :hmm:

Other concern. Why are there no standard prizes at these events? Why is there nothing that says trophies (nicer for kids than large sums of money) are awarded for ......... across the main tournaments, rapid and lightning (if held). They don't have to be enormous or expensive but some kids arrive and play well and expect something based on what has happened before but one year there is a trophy, the next there is not, and the next there is again. Leaves the kid in the middle a bit disappointed. Surely we could determine a certain number of prizes are "standard" and have some consistency from event to event.

And don't give prizemoney without some token (trophy). The money is gone in a flash. Some kids mights get too old & superior for trophies but most kids want a memento of their achievement.

And I'll join Rowena on the shirts. Note the ACT kids like to wear a special ACT t-shirt (esp our U12s). The Mercure & Hospitality Textiles could even have had their logos walking around for years into the future. Better than the booklets which everyone has tossed out. Don't order too many "big" sizes but the little kids love them.

And the U18s Round 1? I think there was an unusually long tail in the Open divisions this year. I don't know top & bottom are always such a defined split.

Ian Rout
24-01-2005, 08:00 AM
Have a look at round one of this years australian juniors, the average rating differential per game was 700 points. How is that useful in finding who is the best australian junior?

Excluding the Swedish juniors who we werent certain of their correct rating, there wasnt one upset result in the first round. All the higher seeded players won.

I don't see that it's a problem that better players win more games. I find it quite comforting.

Accelerated draws were discussed extensively on starter's thread and I haven't changed my mind about it. Accelerated draws are a form of handicap - the bottom players get softer games among each other rather than the pairings dictated by normal Swiss rules - and aren't appropriate to major and title events. They are fine for club, training or other lesser events where getting good games is more important than the outcome.

ursogr8
24-01-2005, 08:16 AM
I don't see that it's a problem that better players win more games. I find it quite comforting.

Accelerated draws were discussed extensively on starter's thread and I haven't changed my mind about it. Accelerated draws are a form of handicap - the bottom players get softer games among each other rather than the pairings dictated by normal Swiss rules - and aren't appropriate to major and title events. They are fine for club, training or other lesser events where getting good games is more important than the outcome.

Ian is quite right that acceleration of the field, as it stands, is not a solution to the problem of a first round that was a waste of time and money.

However, discarding one solution does not mean that the problem has gone away. It just means that the idea (acceleration) is not a solution (this time).

There are other ideas that could be debated, that may have ameliorated the problem. For example, all players rated under 1600 who were under the age of 12 could have been required to play in the U12's. Does anyone have the numbers to see if this was but a handful?

starter

pax
24-01-2005, 08:29 AM
just reducing the rounds doesnt help at all. it must be combined with what is called acceleration. In very simple terms, basically it is assumed that the higher rated players would have won their first round games using a normal swiss draw. So effectively the first round is skipped and the tournament begins from what would normally be round two.


Except it isn't at all like starting at round 2. You still get the junk rounds when the acceleration ends.



Any player can still win the tournament from any seeding.

Can you imagine the grumbling from the top players (and half of the Aus chess community) if a player from the bottom half of an accelerated draw won the Australian Junior? It would be mutiny!

Libby
24-01-2005, 08:30 AM
Ian is quite right that acceleration of the field, as it stands, is not a solution to the problem of a first round that was a waste of time and money.

However, discarding one solution does not mean that the problem has gone away. It just means that the idea (acceleration) is not a solution (this time).

There are other ideas that could be debated, that may have ameliorated the problem. For example, all players rated under 1600 who were under the age of 12 could have been required to play in the U12's. Does anyone have the numbers to see if this was but a handful?

starter

I don't know every child in the event but we had none from the ACT playing in the U18 (except my daughter in the U18 girls) who were eligible to play the U12. We contributed several players u1600 (several a long way under 1600) but they were all U18.

I suspect you would count on one hand any under 12s in the U18.

Perhaps with very high numbers of "average joe" players coming along to the Juniors, either as siblings, or just because they enjoy it or because the various private organisations are offering something akin to an all-inclusive holiday camp that suits working parents, you could look at introducing a "minor" event to play alongside the main championship? If the event ran for the same length of time, under the same time controls and at the same venue it may not suffer the same "second-class" perceptions that discourage children from "stepping down" to these events as run before. I think we would have had a few players enter that sort of division had it run. It's also a good option for any child who may not have entered the Aus Junior as an U12, is scared off by the U18, but might attempt something in the middle as an intermediate "toe in the water."

I would be cautious about prescribing a rating cutoff for entry to the main event (ie forcing all U1600s out etc) because of the great variation in the actual ability of children which will not always match their actual rating

Libby
24-01-2005, 08:37 AM
Except it isn't at all like starting at round 2. You still get the junk rounds when the acceleration ends.

We attempted it in the ACT too, in response to our best kids opting out of junior events on the premise they are "too weak" and "too many junk games."

We didn't find the accleration eliminated junk rounds, just rearranged them, and possibly led to distortions in some sections of the draw.

All-in-all, didn't make any difference. We are going to trial a slightly different format this year. Having our own U1000 division alongside the main event and considering excluding players U800 from the main event (still allows those between 800 and 1000 a choice, bottom of one or top of another).

This will be trialled at one of our junior weekenders (not our junior championship) to see if it encourages entries both from the top end (fewer serious mismatches throughout all rounds) and the bottom end (incentive to compete for their own prizes).

pax
24-01-2005, 08:43 AM
All-in-all, didn't make any difference. We are going to trial a slightly different format this year. Having our own U1000 division alongside the main event and considering excluding players U800 from the main event (still allows those between 800 and 1000 a choice, bottom of one or top of another).

I would strongly discourage the barring of any junior on the basis of rating. I think all junior title events (up to the national level) should be essentially "open".

Libby
24-01-2005, 08:55 AM
I would strongly discourage the barring of any junior on the basis of rating. I think all junior title events (up to the national level) should be essentially "open".

Like I said, not for our Championship - just for one of our weekenders.

The U1000 event is planned, the exclusion of U800 (from the main event) is still being discussed.

At a local level, there is a tendency for the ratings to be more accurate as we are playing within our own pool. An 800 player in Canberra is generally weaker than a 1000 point player in Canberra. However setting that "bar" at 800 would be a flexible thing because we can look at our player list and make a reasonable assessment of where the cutoff lies. We know what to expect of particular players overall.

Nothing is perfect as nothing takes into account a period of rapid improvement. But I'd suggest that most rapid improvement - of the sort that really reflects a new standard of play and can challenge a 1500-1600 strength player - doesn't start until a player is at least 700-800 and really comes into play as they approach 1000. Talking juniors anyway.

jenni
24-01-2005, 01:25 PM
Junior leagues? i don't remember anyone asking me or other parents of under 12's what they wanted? Guru or anybody.

You don't have a junior league in Victoria.....or at least you did have a very good one, but it was killed.

jenni
24-01-2005, 01:43 PM
Other concern. Why are there no standard prizes at these events? Why is there nothing that says trophies (nicer for kids than large sums of money) are awarded for ......... across the main tournaments, rapid and lightning (if held). They don't have to be enormous or expensive but some kids arrive and play well and expect something based on what has happened before but one year there is a trophy, the next there is not, and the next there is again. Leaves the kid in the middle a bit disappointed. Surely we could determine a certain number of prizes are "standard" and have some consistency from event to event.

And don't give prizemoney without some token (trophy). The money is gone in a flash. Some kids mights get too old & superior for trophies but most kids want a memento of their achievement.


This is something I started working on with Denis last year, which never got finished due to a lack of time. However it is definitely going to be finished in 2005 and we will have a junior sub-committee to work with as well. We need to have a set of minimum conditions for the Aus Juniors and associated tournaments and also details on mimimum trophies etc. While state bodies can increase the number of trophies, they shouldn't be allowed to decide not to have any or to do away with titles and have rating group prizes and other such idiotic decisions.

jenni
24-01-2005, 01:48 PM
We attempted it in the ACT too, in response to our best kids opting out of junior events on the premise they are "too weak" and "too many junk games."


Yes - I ran the ACT Juniors with 2 accelerated rounds, in order to try and keep our older juniors happy. It was the first time I had used an accelerated draw and I monitored the draws fairly carefully to see if it achieved the desired result. However it seemed to me that all it did was to move when the junk rounds happened.

Mischa
24-01-2005, 01:50 PM
I think this is an excellent idea...the conditions for the juniors..esp. the under 12's need not only to be set, but carefully monitored as well. It would be a shame to discourage juniors from competing because they are basically ignored.

Prize money up to 5th place for under 18's and no third place for under 12's or under 10's.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2005, 02:21 PM
they shouldn't be allowed to decide not to have any or to do away with titles and have rating group prizes and other such idiotic decisions.
One would have thought the ACF president (and main organiser) would have ensured that the age titles (U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18) for the Junior Lightning and Junior Rapid would have been awarded.
After all he was on the ACF Council when it was decided to add them to the list of official ACF titles.

Mischa
24-01-2005, 02:33 PM
Actually, prize money was awarded to the rating groups and trophies to the age groups.

jenni
24-01-2005, 03:30 PM
One would have thought the ACF president (and main organiser) would have ensured that the age titles (U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18) for the Junior Lightning and Junior Rapid would have been awarded.
After all he was on the ACF Council when it was decided to add them to the list of official ACF titles.
Lee was told he could run the tournaments however he pleased and he ran them with rating group prizes. Because I had bought the trophies for the age titles, these trophies were then awarded at prize giving, so titles were in fact awarded. In some cases kids who won titles did actually get money in many cases they did not. It was all very bizarre.

pax
24-01-2005, 03:31 PM
Actually, prize money was awarded to the rating groups and trophies to the age groups.

Interesting, considering who lobbied for and purchased the trophies.

"Oops, sorry this trophy seems to say U16 instead of U1600." :rolleyes:

jenni
24-01-2005, 03:56 PM
Interesting, considering who lobbied for and purchased the trophies.

"Oops, sorry this trophy seems to say U16 instead of U1600."

Not sure I understand this?

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2005, 05:40 PM
Lee was told he could run the tournaments however he pleased and he ran them with rating group prizes.
I assume Lee was told by an organiser and not Charles Z who I know would have known that its done based on age group not rating.

Because I had bought the trophies for the age titles, these trophies were then awarded at prize giving, so titles were in fact awarded. In some cases kids who won titles did actually get money in many cases they did not. It was all very bizarre.
Bizzare indeed. ;)

Garvinator
24-01-2005, 06:49 PM
I assume Lee was told by an organiser and not Charles Z who I know would have known that its done based on age group not rating.
Actually I do believe it was Charles. It certainly wasnt me as I was unaware of how the lightning was run until after the tournament was run.

During the rapid, I had to inform Lee that progressive is the first tiebreak method used.

jenni
24-01-2005, 09:43 PM
I assume Lee was told by an organiser and not Charles Z who I know would have known that its done based on age group not rating.

Bizzare indeed. ;)

Actually I think Charles was guilty of some Machiavellian strategies in this....

I'll send you a PM.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2005, 10:11 PM
Actually I think Charles was guilty of some Machiavellian strategies in this....
I did actually consider that but assumed otherwise. ;)
Also I'm not convinced Machiavellian strategies are the most effective.


I'll send you a PM.
Thanks.