PDA

View Full Version : Reflections of Mt Buller: A realistic evaluation from An Organiser's point of view



AES
25-01-2005, 12:26 AM
Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

Overall rating:
Mt Buller Australian Open [6/10] ("weaknesses exposed")
Mt Buller Junior [5/10] ("serious flaws")
Adelaide-Australian Championship [9 /10] ("a model tournament")

Criteria:

Location

Mt Buller: remote location, no shops around-shopping difficult, restaurants reasonable but limited, great views, bushwalking available. Limited activities for the kids. Make no mistake though-this was a great location as a ONCE OFF. It is a great location but only once you've got there. [7.5/10]

Adelaide: central location, heaps of restaurants and hotels, activites a-plenty. Always a winner. Having the venue at the University was great due to its location in the city and spacious grounds. The venue itself was exceptional. Ian Rogers described playing conditions as very good. [9/10]

Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.

Adelaide very good [8/10] 4th floor Adelaide Uni. Great venue because it was spacious and there were rooms next to the playing hall where people could talk, buy chess books, tvs, canteen etc.

Arbiting Team

Charles and Roly for both Mt Buller and Adelaide. A great team that has a lot of experience. Scott Colliver was great in Adelaide. Lee Forace and Shaun Press were impressive and professional in Buller. [9/10]

Organising Team

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine. Garvin, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in a keen desire for success. He did very well with setting up the live games. The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result. It was also a problem that we had organisers from many different states. In Mt Buller, the organisers were PAID.

Adelaide: very strong. [9/10]. Andrew Saint, and Robin Wedding were the main organisers with help from George and myself and i thought we ran the tournament well. George was the Publicity Officer and he did a great job. In Adelaide, the organisers were NOT PAID.

Website

Mt Buller: good. [6/10] Fancy setup but hello, where is the information? Where were the pictures? Information was very poorly set out. We had to scroll through a huge word document

Adelaide: great [8/10] informative from the start. All information was provided and on time. There were photos and comments which was great to see.

Internet Coverage

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] It's a pity. While the live games were exceptional with 8 boards in total, thanks Karthick!, the lack of standings/crosstables was inexcusable. I think the blame lies faire and square with Karthick who was always sent the files. But that is just my opinon.

Adelaide: very good. [8/10] Only 4 games were put up live on the internet and it took a few rounds to get started. Standings and crosstables were always put up. The website was informative, reliable and complete.

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

Adelaide: fantastic, no problems. [10/10] Lidums for his cash sponsorship and Adelaide University for hte free venue etc.

Bulletins

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] For the Open, they were great until the sponsors pulled the plug on handing out money for the bulletins. Bulletins had crosstables and standings, all games were entered. For juniors, I was in charge of the bulletins and at that stage we had to keep the number of pages down. THis meant standings and crosstables weren't put in which is understandably frustrating. If i had my time again, i would have added them anyway. For the Juniors and not the Open, there was not the proper infrastructure to ensure good bulletins ie computers in analysis room so ALL games could be added to the bulletins.

Adelaide: excellent [9/10] Everything a bulletin should be. They were informative, humorous at times, all games were included and the result was a great bulletin.

Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs?

Mt Buller Junior: excellent [9/10] 170 odd players which is a great result. But let's face it-juniors, and their parents!!!, will go wherever they have to go.

Adelaide Championship/Reserves: excellent [9/10] around 150 but i can't remember. A great number. The Championship was possibly the strongest ever.

Entry Fee/Prize Ratio

Mt Buller: excellent ratio [9/10]. But boy did it need to be.

Adelaide: average ratio [8/10]. A tad expensive.

Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.

Cat
25-01-2005, 12:37 AM
Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

Overall rating:
Mt Buller Australian Open [6/10] ("weaknesses exposed")
Mt Buller Junior [5/10] ("serious flaws")
Adelaide-Australian Championship [9 /10] ("a model tournament")

Criteria:

Location

Mt Buller: remote location, no shops around-shopping difficult, restaurants reasonable but limited, great views, bushwalking available. Limited activities for the kids. Make no mistake though-this was a great location as a ONCE OFF. [7.5/10]

Adelaide: central location, heaps of restaurants and hotels, activites a-plenty. Always a winner. Having the venue at the University was great due to its location in the city and spacious grounds. The venue itself was exceptional. Ian Rogers described playing conditions as very good. [9/10]

Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.

Adelaide very good [8/10] 4th floor Adelaide Uni. Great venue because it was spacious and there were rooms next to the playing hall where people could talk, buy chess books, tvs, canteen etc.

Arbiting Team

Charles and Roly for both Mt Buller and Adelaide. A great team that has a lot of experience. Scott Colliver was great in Adelaide. Lee Forace and Shaun Press were impressive and professional in Buller. [9/10]

Organising Team

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine. Garvin, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in a keen desire for success. He did very well with setting up the live games. The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result. It was also a problem that we had organisers from many different states. In Mt Buller, the organisers were PAID.

Adelaide: very strong. [9/10]. Andrew Saint, and Robin Wedding were the main organisers with help from George and myself and i thought we ran the tournament well. George was the Publicity Officer and he did a great job. In Adelaide, the organisers were NOT PAID.

Website

Mt Buller: good. [6/10] Fancy setup but hello, where is the information? Where were the pictures? Information was very poorly set out. We had to scroll through a huge word document

Adelaide: great [8/10] informative from the start. All information was provided and on time. There were photos and comments which was great to see.

Internet Coverage

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] It's a pity. While the live games were exceptional with 8 boards in total, thanks Karthick!, the lack of standings/crosstables was inexcusable. I think the blame lies faire and square with Karthick who was always sent the files. But that is just my opinon.

Adelaide: very good. [8/10] Only 4 games were put up live on the internet and it took a few rounds to get started. Standings and crosstables were always put up. The website was informative, reliable and complete.

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

Adelaide: fantastic, no problems. [10/10] Lidums for his cash sponsorship and Adelaide University for hte free venue etc.

Bulletins

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] For the Open, they were great until the sponsors pulled the plug on handing out money for the bulletins. Bulletins had crosstables and standings, all games were entered. For juniors, I was in charge of the bulletins and at that stage we had to keep the number of pages down. THis meant standings and crosstables weren't put in which is understandably frustrating. If i had my time again, i would have added them anyway. For the Juniors and not the Open, there was not the proper infrastructure to ensure good bulletins ie computers in analysis room so ALL games could be added to the bulletins.

Adelaide: excellent [9/10] Everything a bulletin should be. They were informative, humorous at times, all games were included and the result was a great bulletin.

Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs?

Mt Buller Junior: excellent [9/10] 170 odd players which is a great result. But let's face it-juniors, and their parents!!!, will go wherever they have to go.

Adelaide Championship/Reserves: excellent [9/10] around 150 but i can't remember. A great number. The Championship was possibly the strongest ever.

Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.


Great candour! For what it's worth the feedback I've had from the Queensland contigent so far has been positive. Good job in difficult circumstances, why didn't you post like this when a little pr was needed?

Garvinator
25-01-2005, 01:30 AM
Since you have led first Alex, i will reply to your post as my analysis is very different to yours and is still a day away.


INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.
I disagree with this. Even though technically both bids had the same amount of time, I am sure the Adelaide bid has some background work done on it before putting it to the acf council. I am certain it was more than 9 days like Mt Buller did.

Also, Adelaide didnt have the Cordover hang over like Mt Buller did. This was a major negative which hindered all aspects of running mt buller, especially in the early stages. I was fielding phone calls and having to explain that David was no longer running the mt buller events, long after the organising team had changed.
Given a year or so to set up for mt buller and with some members of the organising team still around in two years, the mt buller events would have been much better organised and the events themselves would be even better.


Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.
There could have been a canteen quite easily as there was a ready made area for it. It was George's decision alone to not have a canteen and when the main organiser says it, that is how it is.
This was just one instance of George making a unilateral decision which was at odds to the needs of the players, spectators etc and also the opinions of the other organisers.

Organising Team


Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine.
I dont recall much delegation at all. We either had to fend for ourselves or leave everything to George. I was very afraid to give anyone a straight answer in case George didnt like the answer I gave ie Michael Lip being a perfect example.


The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result.
George could have asked as main organiser, but he didnt. No matter how many complaints were received about the bulletins, George did nothing about them. It was like he didnt care how much you and I had to slave during the juniors to get games done for the bulletins. A simple request from him for ppl to help and we would have had help.

We actually managed to get some help without George's assistance and what happened, he abused the helpers. That was disgusting and made me ashamed to be second in charge.


Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament.
I think your rating is too generous. I think a hotel can sponsor a chess tournament, but these guys didnt have a clue this time. I was told by George early on that the chalet had told him that all accommodation enquiries were to be handled by the chalet/lodges etc. They didnt have the bar area open that would have been perfect for most ppls food and drink needs. This was pointed out to them and it still didnt change.


They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event. Alex, you were involved in the bulletins during the open and also know Lidums more than I do. George was main organiser. Why didnt someone ask him to help sponsor the bulletins so we could have decent bulletins?
I did express an opinion early on that I didnt think one sponsor should bail out another, but after speaking to everyone else, I thought it a better idea than what we ended up with.


Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs? This has been flogged to death. I am sure the horse is well and truly been turned into glue before now.

George made a decision after receiving advice from Ian Rogers and others that offering prizes down to tenth would attract the IM's.
This proved to be incorrect. By the time this was realised, all the brochures had been sent out and nothing could be really done to change the prize structure.
George told me about how the prize structure was set out many times. If it is incorrect, then my apologies to all and sundry. I am just repeating what George kept saying to me over and over again regarding how the prize list for the open was structured.

Alex, you were more involved early on regarding title player negotiations than I was. What happened early on?


Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.
I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.


Alex, I notice in your evaluation that you dont say a single bad word about the Adelaide Championships. No event is perfect and each event can be improved on next time. I am sure there were negatives about how the Adelaide events were run, but you dont mention them in detail, or with the same negative language that you used for Mt Buller problems.

Unfortunately, this gives a massive indication of bias towards the Adelaide events.

Ian_Rogers
25-01-2005, 07:46 AM
I wish Garvin wouldn't keep repeating the myth that the prize fund used for the Open was the one I recommended - the only similarity was that I suggested that, if half a dozen GMs were to be present as planned, prizes should run down at least to tenth.

As I have posted before, the prize fund used was George's construction. When he put his model to me I suggested significant changes (reducing first prize and increasing the lower prizes, running prizes down to 12th) which were rejected. Fair enough - but George should take responsibility if he now thinks the prize structure was not ideal.

Ian

shaun
25-01-2005, 08:10 AM
Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

<snip>


Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.

An excellent and honest summation.

pax
25-01-2005, 09:28 AM
Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

This is a little ambiguous: Mercure pulled out of bulletin printing, not Lidums.

Libby
25-01-2005, 09:35 AM
I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.

OK Garvin - of course it's not unrepeatable. The ACT kids have mostly come home happy. I have heard it was a little boring up there, but kids can - and did - make their own fun.

The question is more about the advantages of repeating it.

Leave aside the issues of who said what, who picked on who and who just didn't have a clue. You need to sell me the advantages of the Mt Buller deal above and beyond what is routinely on offer if we go elsewhere.

For all the money available this time - cash & kind - tell me, what did it actually mean for the children at the event?

The lower entry fee story was a furphy. Extra prizemoney is not (much as kids like winning it) integral to junior events. Extra big trophies are not essential, especially not if it means fewer are awarded than normal. The $4000 removed from prizemoney and set aside for junior development is nice, and appreciated, but not enough to fund significant programs. The Italian coaches were nice for the kids who stayed at the Mercure but "extras" like a welcome BBQ in Adelaide and a Zoo BBQ in Perth were put on for everybody and that's, personally, the only sort of sponsorship, activity or enhancement I would value and support from any organiser of any junior event.

And yes, the Mercure might offer lodges next time (small entry fee for players) and free entry if you stay at the Mercure and $250 entry fee if you choose your own accommodation etc. And yes, I hope, people will have learnt from this experience so it will run better on the ground next time.

And yes, I might not like going to Woomera if SACA run it there, or Broome if WACA run it there or Mt Isa, or Broken Hill or Thredbo even, but I would go - once - if that is where the Juniors are held. Just like my daughter went to Mt Buller. Do I want to go twice? Maybe. But I'd prefer to go somewhere different and somewhere a bit easier to get to. In the case of Mt Buller, I'd prefer somewhere with more facilities.

Kayleigh came home very sick and has been in bed for the last 3 days. This started in Mt Buller last Wednesday. Fortunately, it didn't start to peak until the Friday night and she was coming home Saturday. Sunday night I had to take her to the hospital after hours clinic. After that, I had 2 prescription and 1 over-the-counter medication to get at the after hours chemist several suburbs away.

How do I deal with that in Mt Buller?

Convince me there are significant, ongoing benefits to Australian chess - at both the senior and junior level - and I'll agree it's worth repeating. Otherwise, just let us take our turn travelling around the country to these events at major centres (it doesn't have to be a capital city but gee - transport and a shop are a big plus!)


Alex, I notice in your evaluation that you dont say a single bad word about the Adelaide Championships. No event is perfect and each event can be improved on next time. I am sure there were negatives about how the Adelaide events were run, but you dont mention them in detail, or with the same negative language that you used for Mt Buller problems.

I don't think he had to Garvin. Any major issues would probably have been complained about long before now. Alex expressed himself honestly on some smaller issues they had, and how they were tackled. I don't think he gave himself too many 10/10.

jenni
25-01-2005, 09:46 AM
There could have been a canteen quite easily as there was a ready made area for it. It was George's decision alone to not have a canteen and when the main organiser says it, that is how it is.
This was just one instance of George making a unilateral decision which was at odds to the needs of the players, spectators etc and also the opinions of the other organisers.



Ah - I wondered what happened. When I was up for the schools I sat down with Peter (Mercure general manager) and went through the issue of a canteen for the juniors. He was quite happy to run a small canteen with basic hot food (pies, sausage rolls, etc). I just assumed he had changed his mind - I should have known George had a paw in it.

Garvinator
25-01-2005, 09:47 AM
I wish Garvin wouldn't keep repeating the myth that the prize fund used for the Open was the one I recommended - the only similarity was that I suggested that, if half a dozen GMs were to be present as planned, prizes should run down at least to tenth.

As I have posted before, the prize fund used was George's construction. When he put his model to me I suggested significant changes (reducing first prize and increasing the lower prizes, running prizes down to 12th) which were rejected. Fair enough - but George should take responsibility if he now thinks the prize structure was not ideal.

Ian
thank you for the clarification Ian. We havent actually spoken about this matter in person. The only way I know that the prize fund was constructed was from what George kept saying and which is what I have repeated here. I will stop now that your position has been clarified. :)

Libby;) Ill get to your long reply in a couple of hours:)

jenni
25-01-2005, 10:28 AM
I think the juniors could go back to Mt Buller again. It was OK - there were problems that could be fixed fairly easily with a co-operative main organiser.

The problems did get very annoying - I've just had an e-mail from Ian Rogers (who caught up with Manuel Weeks in Gibraltar), asking if it was true I was swearing like a trucker in Mt Buller and the answer is YES.

George's first response to anything was to say "no". His second response was "Hell will freeze over before I change my mind." His third response was to say "Parents can get stuffed.". It was enough to drive a saint to swear and I am no saint.

With someone else in charge, I think we could get a good juniors going. However I would want to see more tangible benefits for chess in australia. A proper development plan with long term benefits, not just bringing some big names out every couple of years. The juniors are giving up development opportunities. Having a local Aus juniors is a big plus for the states. It gives the local juniors a chance to play without having to pay for transport and accommodation. This can lead to many new juniors moving into the elite ranks. A good example is Ronald Yu - his first Aus Juniors was the one held in Sydney in 2002 - he had never travelled prior to that. Since then he has gone from strength to strength.

It also gives local administrators the chance to be involved in running a national event, it allows media opportunites and to publicise chess in the local environment. All this will now happen once every 12 years, instead of once every 6 years. If we are going to give up a major development tool, we need to be convinced of the benefits of the new strategy and to be quite honest I don't see them at the moment.

However the focus really needs to be on the Open. Juniors will go to all sorts of places and put up with major inconveniece (or at least the parents will - I am not convinced the juniors even notice). But will the adults? A lot has been said about the Open being small, because it was advertised late etc etc. We were in Mt Buller for the end of the Open and talked to a number of participants (particularly Tony who was partying until very late :) ). Everyone seemed to be saying they wouldn't come back, because it was boring. Do we really want to have an Open of 70 or less in the future? I just don't see how you are going to get the numbers.

Oepty
25-01-2005, 11:01 AM
Garvin. Yes there were things that went wrong in Adelaide. Things such as the best time to do maintinence at a University is during the time it is largely empty. This lead to a workman using a drill right out side the venue disrupting players. This was dealt with and the workmen agreed to do the work outside of playing times. This is something a good organiser can do.
There was a problem with printing the Bulletins on one day but that was quickly dealt with and the bulletins were produced that day, even though a little late.
There were a few other things I could mention, of similar size, but players are prepared to overlook the odd thing going wrong if it is obvious the organisers are going out of there way to do everything right and are prepared to work very hard to meet there needs. This is what happened in Adelaide with Andrew Saint, Alex Saint and Robin Wedding being always available to get things done that needed to be done. They were also helped by the consistent availability of Tristom Cooke and Valerie Moore to enter games for the Bulletins.
Bill Anderson-Smith was the fourth member of the arbiting team and handled the Senior Championships throughout the tournaments without hitch. He was a far, far more important member of the arbiting team than I was and this was only another example of the consistent excellent work he does for chess in SA.
George played a vital role in what happened in Adelaide, but it was in a different role than the role he had to undertake in Mt Buller.

Thankyou Alex for your excellent post.
Scott

firegoat7
25-01-2005, 11:45 AM
I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.

Well George resigned so the next one will be different. What probably is important GG is to document all your concerns and to archive them for the ACF. You gave it a go which is always a good thing. Stand back and look at what you achieved, make it better next time.

Whether you got paid or not is irrelevent, since ideally it would be great if the ACF could pay organisers appropriate manager fees in return for professional organisation. It is a double edged arguement however. Maybe the structure of payement needs to be debated. It seems silly not to reward the efforts of volunteering contributors by at least offering them some sort of grant for funding. For example, Adelaide uni puts on the Aus champs, how about the ACF forking out the cost for two sponsored display boards in recognition of their collective work. Reciprocal benefits ought to work for volunteers and professionals.

Furthermore I thought Adelaides internet coverage was poor. I gave it a 4/10. In fact I am yet to see an Australian event where the Internet coverage was not flawed. This may be a problem the ACF might want to address. A dynamic archive for Internet coverage would be an extremely useful resource for all organisers.

In hindsight maybe Cordovers actions were actually reasonably legitimate. I'm sure George must have been caught in a double bind as to wanting to talk up the event, while secretly hiding some serious misgivings about the organisation structure. Still there is the old saying "fools ruch in where Angels fear to tread"

Only it is not actually clear who the actual fools are....is it? Maybe the bidding process is actually the legitimate problem, with everything else being smoke and mirrors.

I still think the ACF made the right decision by running the event themselves. It just goes to show everyone how difficult it really is to run an event dosen't it.

Cheers FG7

jenni
25-01-2005, 01:10 PM
Well George resigned so the next one will be different.

George was telling all the junior parents that it was definitely back in Mt Buller in 2007 and that he would be running it......

shaun
25-01-2005, 01:14 PM
George was telling all the junior parents that it was definitely back in Mt Buller in 2007 and that he would be running it......

And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.

jenni
25-01-2005, 01:23 PM
And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.
Graeme Gardiner is involved in Brisbane 2006 :clap: :clap: :clap: - with or without sponsorship from Accor.

DoroPhil
25-01-2005, 01:25 PM
And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.

Then why does Garvin try to hang so much shit on George here?? I do realize that Garvin is relatively young and would probably score below average on the IQ test, but still...

shaun
25-01-2005, 01:28 PM
Graeme Gardiner is involved in Brisbane 2006 :clap: :clap: :clap: - with or without sponsorship from Accor.

Ah, but there were/are two Brisbane bids in the pipeline. One was the Gardiner/Humphries bid and the other was the Gray/Howard(?) bid. Sadly the second bid tried to sabotage the first bid by bagging Graeme out to Roman in an effort to secure sponsorship money.

Garvinator
25-01-2005, 01:28 PM
And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.
this is in fact incorrect. George doesnt have any plans for the 2006 championships anywhere. I was looking at accor sponsorship for 2006 in qld, but unless there is a major change, I have abandoned those plans after the month at mt buller.

Originally I was hoping for some kind of deal for 2006 championships, but after a conversation with Roman, i realised this was a forlorn hope.

shaun
25-01-2005, 01:30 PM
Then why does Garvin try to hang so much shit on George here?? I do realize that Garvin is relatively young and would probably score below average on the IQ test, but still...

It seems they must have had a falling out at some stage, although when I was there they seemed as thick as thieves.

jenni
25-01-2005, 01:34 PM
It seems they must have had a falling out at some stage, although when I was there they seemed as thick as thieves.

I think to be fair to Garvin, he actually wanted the whole thing to work and he recognised (at least in most of my dealings with him), that customer service was important. On many occasions over the last 6 months, he was the one to try and come up with a rational solution to a problem and George was the one who stepped in and squashed it.

Garvinator
25-01-2005, 01:35 PM
It seems they must have had a falling out at some stage, although when I was there they seemed as thick as thieves.
it is called being second in charge and trying to give the impression that we are a unified organising team. But more and more I realised that I couldnt support most of the decisions George was making, especially after George unloaded on Michael Lip.

firegoat7
25-01-2005, 02:04 PM
George was telling all the junior parents that it was definitely back in Mt Buller in 2007 and that he would be running it......

Under what authority would George be able to make such a claim?

Yeah it seems to be a repeating pattern in oz chess. Executive power on a volunteer basis leads to a niche market in the chess scene with a paying gig.

In fact there are an incredible amount of examples of this behaviour that litter the Australian chess scene. I presumed the ACF was running the show, but maybe there is actually nobody.

Cheers FG7
P.S I wouldn't suggest Graham Gardiner is beyond reproach either in regards to this

jenni
25-01-2005, 02:41 PM
Under what authority would George be able to make such a claim?

Don't know as I understood it was all up for review by the ACF and George was only 1 of a number of people on the review sub-committee.



I presumed the ACF was running the show, but maybe there is actually nobody.

Once George agreed to assume liability for any losses and also to take profits, it then became a business enterprise.



P.S I wouldn't suggest Graham Gardiner is beyond reproach either in regards to this

I am not opposed to businesses in chess. Although I have always done my work on a purely volunteer basis, I see a valuable role for chess businesses in chess development. It needs to be married with an ethical outlook and I feel Graeme has this.

pax
25-01-2005, 02:46 PM
Under what authority would George be able to make such a claim?

None. Even after the sub-committee reports, future events still need to be proposed and accepted by the ACF before any guarantees can be made about future events.

Alan Shore
25-01-2005, 03:45 PM
Some general comments:


Location

Adelaide: central location, heaps of restaurants and hotels, activites a-plenty. Always a winner. Having the venue at the University was great due to its location in the city and spacious grounds. The venue itself was exceptional. Ian Rogers described playing conditions as very good. [9/10]

Venue

Adelaide very good [8/10] 4th floor Adelaide Uni. Great venue because it was spacious and there were rooms next to the playing hall where people could talk, buy chess books, tvs, canteen etc.

I agree with this. I didn't play the Champs but was there at the time and it is an impressive venue.


Website

Mt Buller: good. [6/10] Fancy setup but hello, where is the information? Where were the pictures? Information was very poorly set out. We had to scroll through a huge word document

I was disappointed with the lack of pictures.. digital cameras are not hard to come by these days and it really wouldn't have taken all that long to upload some.


Internet Coverage

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] It's a pity. While the live games were exceptional with 8 boards in total, thanks Karthick!, the lack of standings/crosstables was inexcusable. I think the blame lies faire and square with Karthick who was always sent the files. But that is just my opinon.

I don't think this is accurate. I know there were times when Karthick was simply not sent those files - he was waiting, waiting, waiting for them and they never came. What really should have happened was to specify a consistent time of when they would arrive, upon which they could have been instantly transferred. You can't expect K to stay up past 1am waiting for those files.


INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

I agree with Garvin here, it's unfair to make such a one-dimensional assessment as everyone is quite aware of the negative impact of having Cordover withdraw.

skip to my lou
25-01-2005, 05:44 PM
My Experience

The recent delay with the website is because my net connection broke due to storms. Site should be updated soon.

SP Files:

But before this problem (around round 10 of junior?), I was sent a lot of these files after 1AM, some times at 3AM and on a couple of occasions 4AM (and usually this is the day after the round).

PGN Files:

PGN's were damn late, like 2 or 3 days late, with files usually jumbled up, games not in the right file, and files not clearly labelled, and basically confused me, as you can see in the zip file there are multiple naming standards, multiple (1) files, etc.

Photos:

After asking for information many times, I just got tired of all this. I was told the organisers at Mt Buller did not want to give me pictures, which is probably true, I think they want to sell their CD's and make some profit or something.

News:

I got a couple of news items from Garvin which Charlez Z had wrote, but the first one, came extremely late. It was also written by George (which was extremely poor quality) and which was later rewritten (by Garvin; Much better this time), and then I wrote one using the information in both.

Online Signup:

This was much more successful than any of us had thought it could be. We recorded some US$3,000 in signups (not bad for a first time). As far as I am aware, there have been no complaints regarding the online signup and it was fairly easy to use.

Sponsors:

The sponsors did not co-operate while I was creating the website. They wanted their logos on the website and they sent me some huge 5MB files. I just searched the net instead and found some alternative pictures, which they refused to send me.

Also, George got someone to help with the brochure, and was working on Mac format. When I requested some file format, I was told that I have no idea what I am doing and that I should rewrite the whole thing into MS word manually.

I have also heard some things that George has said, and I am shocked that he would behave in such a way to his customers.

The 03 Open set the standard, in terms of tournament and website.

Please note I was forced to work with George and team. The only reason I accepted to work with Cordover is because he obviously realises the power of such media, and placed a very high value on the website, however it is unfortunate that some of these Victorians go straight to serving up legal threats and/or documents when there is a conflict.

Lucena
25-01-2005, 05:50 PM
Alex, I notice in your evaluation that you dont say a single bad word about the Adelaide Championships. No event is perfect and each event can be improved on next time. I am sure there were negatives about how the Adelaide events were run, but you dont mention them in detail, or with the same negative language that you used for Mt Buller problems.

Unfortunately, this gives a massive indication of bias towards the Adelaide events.

Garvin the reason Alex doesn't mention negatives about Adelaide is not bias. Any negatives to the Australian Championships were really quite minor(I seem to remember some of the floorboards in the playing hall of the closed division creaked slightly if you walked in the wrong place). Basically the tournament was very well-run and smooth. My most annoying moment was being told in the 1st round I (as Black) couldn't decide what side the clock would go on, which was my fault for not knowing the rules(arbiter decides where clock will go in a normal-length game).

adelandre
25-01-2005, 06:12 PM
With regards to the Adelaide Event, all in all i was very happy with it and proud to effectively be in the main organiser role and working with a great, experienced team. In saying that, I have also learnt and enjoyed working with the Mt Buller team, although it is no secret in saying we had our challenges. Scott did mention some of the disadvantages, others were:

1) The heavy lack of funding. We had a great sponsor in Avairs Lidums but it was difficult to find extra cash to support the event. I used my contacts in the Union Building to get a $2000 union grant, and reduce venue hire/cleaning costs to $1000, and get a cheap BBQ on the first night. Even then the budget was still tight, so I personally funded some of the players refreshements - and things such as colour bulletins and fancy tournament brochures were not practical. Everything was volunteer apart from arbiters who were not paid as much as Mt Buller. The Canteen made no money whatsoever and was a service to players rather than a money raiser - debatable whether this should have been switched.

2) The high entry fees - unfortunately I was brought on board after the entry fees/basic prize structure had been submitted and passed to the ACF. This could have been lowered in my opinion, and any loss would have been overcome by increase in numbers. Having said this no players complained during the event as we gave them plenty of free refreshments, cheap canteen/lunch food, and free newspapers and all sorts of other stuff.

3) Lack of experience in live games & only dialup connection - lead to frequent dropout of the connection, and problems at times. Only four boards was a bit limiting. We asked for more from Gary Bekker but some had been tied up overseas which I was a little frustrated over (are they meant to be prioritised for the Champs?). However, we overcame this by entering games during play on our bulletin board.

4) Final night party compatability: Unfortunately the final night party could not cater for everyone and was too loud and raucus for some - we perhaps should have had two periods - quiet talking and loud dancing. But the players liked the 15 free cartons of beer and 5 free casks of wine.

One thing I would have liked at Mt Buller that we had in Adelaide was the Public Lectures, but this did take a bit more organising effort and is not a priority. In adelaide, Alex Davidovic and Alan Goldsmith kindly volunteered their time to lecture during the day on the previous days /current days games, and top playres (such as Rogers, Johansen) commented in the evenings on their games that day. Cathy Rogers was extremely helpful by couriering the moves up to the lecturer from the main playing hall.

Hope these comments may also prove helpful for the queensland mob.

Cheers, Andrew

faeces gambit
25-01-2005, 11:49 PM
Is the 2006 Juniors definitely going to held in Brisbane and if so does anyone know the dates.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2005, 09:42 AM
Is the 2006 Juniors definitely going to held in Brisbane and if so does anyone know the dates.
As far as I am aware no formal bids have been made to the ACF yet for the Australian Championship or the Australian Junior.
The only known fact is that QLD intend to submit bids for both events.

jenni
26-01-2005, 10:42 AM
As far as I am aware no formal bids have been made to the ACF yet for the Australian Championship or the Australian Junior.
The only known fact is that QLD intend to submit bids for both events.

However rumour and gossip (which is what the BB deals in), says that the Aus Juniors and Aus Champs will be held together in order to avoid a clash with Queenstown. Probably one on the morning and one late afternoon.

Is this a good idea? Not sure. I would like to go to Queenstown with my family, as it sounds a good comp and there is no doubt that Queenstown will take away both coaches and juniors. On the other hand combining Champs/Juniors is going to do that anyway. Many of the strong coaches will play the Aus champs and from what I have heard from parents many of them are saying it will be one or the other, they are not going to go to both the Juniors and Queenstown.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2005, 10:51 AM
However rumour and gossip (which is what the BB deals in), says that the Aus Juniors and Aus Champs will be held together in order to avoid a clash with Queenstown. Probably one on the morning and one late afternoon.
Yes, my understanding is that is the QLD plan.

eclectic
26-01-2005, 12:40 PM
However rumour and gossip (which is what the BB deals in), says that the Aus Juniors and Aus Champs will be held together in order to avoid a clash with Queenstown. Probably one on the morning and one late afternoon.

Is this a good idea? Not sure.

It was done this way in 1995/96 at the University of Technology, Sydney. Great for juniors who have a lot of stamina and want to enter in both events.
Anyone who was involved with those events, either as an organiser or a player, might be able to elaborate on the pros and cons of this setup.

Mark

shaun
26-01-2005, 01:06 PM
However rumour and gossip (which is what the BB deals in), says that the Aus Juniors and Aus Champs will be held together in order to avoid a clash with Queenstown. Probably one on the morning and one late afternoon.

Is this a good idea? Not sure.

I think having the Junior and Championship/Open at the same time is the way to go (and not just for this coming year). From an organisers point of view the entire package is more saleable to sponsors and the expenses are reduced due to economies of scale.
Obviously junior players who want to play in both events have to make a choice, but that's what growing up is about. For those who think a junior title is the be-all and end-all of chess, then the choice is clear, while those who realise that it is just a stage on a longer path are already smart enough to make the right choice.

eclectic
26-01-2005, 01:15 PM
For those who think a junior title is the be-all and end-all of chess, then the choice is clear, while those who realise that it is just a stage on a longer path are already smart enough to make the right choice.

You weren't thinking of anyone in particular?

:whistle:

Mark

shaun
26-01-2005, 01:21 PM
You weren't thinking of anyone in particular?

:whistle:

Mark

No, although I am aware of some juniors who won the Australian Junior Championship and then dropped out of chess (eg Ron Klinger)

Denis_Jessop
26-01-2005, 02:18 PM
To end :rolleyes: speculation about the 2005/2006 Australian Championships/Juniors, I can say that no formal bid has yet been made for either event. I know that the CAQ intends to bid. I have just sent a note to ACF Councillors again inviting bids - they were first invited in April 2004 (!). A notice to the same effect has also been submitted for publication in next week's ACF Newsletter.

Denis Jessop
ACF President

jenni
26-01-2005, 02:31 PM
It was done this way in 1995/96 at the University of Technology, Sydney. Great for juniors who have a lot of stamina and want to enter in both events.
Anyone who was involved with those events, either as an organiser or a player, might be able to elaborate on the pros and cons of this setup.

Mark

It was the first juniors my kids played at and so we thought it was fine. Having actually experienced other juniors since then, it is now one of the least enjoyable. However the things that made it unenjoyable are not related to the fact that it was run in parallel with the adult tournament.

I remember Laura Moylan playing in both - she won the Aus girls title that year, although I think her results in the adult tournament were not as good.

Both tournaments were held in the same playing hall and there was no-where for the kids to play after their games. I think if the juniors is still physically held in a junior friendly environment, then one of my main dislikes of 1996 would be rectified.

In 1996 coaching was not a major factor. Now it is and I wonder about the impact? It will lead to patchy effects, with some states not being affected at all and possibly others losing a number of their normal coaches.

jenni
26-01-2005, 02:38 PM
I think having the Junior and Championship/Open at the same time is the way to go (and not just for this coming year). From an organisers point of view the entire package is more saleable to sponsors and the expenses are reduced due to economies of scale.
Obviously junior players who want to play in both events have to make a choice, but that's what growing up is about. For those who think a junior title is the be-all and end-all of chess, then the choice is clear, while those who realise that it is just a stage on a longer path are already smart enough to make the right choice.

Oh dear Shaun - your junior dislikes are showing......

Of course it is just a stage, but why should kids have to make that choice - they grow up rapidly enough as it is. Do we want to encourage them to become mini-adults even sooner?

Being part of an Aus juniors, the social networks, the fun, the friendships are much more what it is about. Of the 170 who played in Mt Buller only a tiny number were there chasing a title. The rest were there to be part of a major junior event. Our aim should be to encourage the 18 year olds to come to the adult tournament, or to encourage the elite players to play both, by having them consecutive. Not to destroy the Aus Juniors by always running them together and then denigrating the kids who choose the juniors over the adults.

It is all about creating migration paths - not something that seems to have a lot of attention paid to it. Perhaps there should be an active targetting of kids turning 18, who have been regulars at the Aus Juniors. I was talking to Phachara Wongwichit in Perht last year and said I assumed he would be goign to the Aus open, as he was graduating form junior ranks. He said categorically that he didn't think he would do something like that - I got the impression he didn't think it was something he would enjoy. I was delighted to see that he did indeed play.

The junior organisations have no trouble finding volunteers and money to run the Aus Juniors. Seems to me that the ones to benefit out of permanently combining them, would be the adults who seem to continually struggle to find people to run their flagship events.

Ian Rout
26-01-2005, 02:40 PM
I can see a case for a concurrent Juniors and Australian Championship in the year of a closed championship, since only a couple of juniors would qualify for the Championship and quite possibly some or all would not have played in both anyway. As Shaun said juniors at the level of playing for the full Championship may well have moved on from junior titles, in the same way that many top teenage GMs don't contest the World Junior.

However when it's an Open I would like to think that both an Australian Opoen and an Australian Junior are sufficiently attractive to be sustainable in their own right without making players choose. In particular those rising stars who are good enough to benefit from playing in the Open but are not so established as to want to forego junior titles are put in a difficult position.

Incidentally when is a decision to be announced? - it's not August yet but the clock has ticked down towards the eleventh-month point.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2005, 03:39 PM
Incidentally when is a decision to be announced? - it's not August yet but the clock has ticked down towards the eleventh-month point.
You cannot make a decision when there are no formal bids.

Ian Rout
26-01-2005, 04:02 PM
You cannot make a decision when there are no formal bids.
That's a good point.

Is there a closing date or are bids considered to be open indefinitely until the first one arrives?

shaun
26-01-2005, 05:11 PM
Oh dear Shaun - your junior dislikes are showing......


No, just restating a position I have consistently held since I played in my first/only Australian Junior in 1983.




Of course it is just a stage, but why should kids have to make that choice - they grow up rapidly enough as it is. Do we want to encourage them to become mini-adults even sooner?

Being part of an Aus juniors, the social networks, the fun, the friendships are much more what it is about. Of the 170 who played in Mt Buller only a tiny number were there chasing a title. The rest were there to be part of a major junior event. Our aim should be to encourage the 18 year olds to come to the adult tournament, or to encourage the elite players to play both, by having them consecutive. Not to destroy the Aus Juniors by always running them together and then denigrating the kids who choose the juniors over the adults.


I cannot see how the social networks or fun will be anyway lessened by holding the events together. And the only pressure I have seen on juniors is to miss the Oz Open/Champs and play in the Junior instead.




It is all about creating migration paths - not something that seems to have a lot of attention paid to it. Perhaps there should be an active targetting of kids turning 18, who have been regulars at the Aus Juniors. I was talking to Phachara Wongwichit in Perht last year and said I assumed he would be goign to the Aus open, as he was graduating form junior ranks. He said categorically that he didn't think he would do something like that - I got the impression he didn't think it was something he would enjoy. I was delighted to see that he did indeed play.

The junior organisations have no trouble finding volunteers and money to run the Aus Juniors. Seems to me that the ones to benefit out of permanently combining them, would be the adults who seem to continually struggle to find people to run their flagship events.

But this hasn't always been the case. While the Aus Champs has been held every two years since WWII, and the Aus Open in the intervening years since 1971, the Australian Junior wasn't held one year in the late 1980's because no one in Australia would organise it, and the titles were only awarded after the CAQ jumped in and held a reduced event in the August(?) school holidays.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2005, 05:34 PM
But this hasn't always been the case. While the Aus Champs has been held every two years since WWII, and the Aus Open in the intervening years since 1971, the Australian Junior wasn't held one year in the late 1980's because no one in Australia would organise it, and the titles were only awarded after the CAQ jumped in and held a reduced event in the August(?) school holidays.
The Aus Junior for 1989 was held in Brisbane from June 24 to July 2nd and was won by Peter Cotton.

jenni
26-01-2005, 06:00 PM
I cannot see how the social networks or fun will be anyway lessened by holding the events together.


Because ambitious parents/coaches will rather opt for the adult tournament, than the juniors - this is already a trend with more and more kids playing up divisions, even though they haven't already won a title. At the moment they can play both the adult and the juniors. I fear once a choice has to be made, it will be for the adults. You then get a snowball "me too" effect, with more and more kids opting out.

Eventually the Aus juniors will become a joke tournament and the titles devalued and no doubt at some point, some Einstein will suggest awarding the junior titles out of the Open. :)

Also it is hard to find a venue that suits the needs of both - I understand Queensland is looking at venues near parks, so there will be suitable areas for kids to play, but will this always be the case?

I think much better to leave the juniors in their own environment, with enthusiasts able to play both the adult and the juniors and rather seek better migration paths, so juniors can make a smoother transition from one environment to the other.

shaun
26-01-2005, 06:00 PM
The Aus Junior for 1989 was held in Brisbane from June 24 to July 2nd and was won by Peter Cotton.

Thanks Bill. I couldn't remember the exact dates, although I do clearly remember the SACA trying to have the event not recognised as an official Australian Junior on the (reasonable) grounds that as the school holdays didn't line up for all the states, SA juniors (and possibly others) were unable to attend.

eclectic
26-01-2005, 07:51 PM
The events could always be held consecutively instead or concurrently ie at 2 rounds per day ... a bit like the way Brian Jones partially? arranged the Australian Open at Penrith.

Would the junior events be held first, or the regular events?

FIDE doesn't mind 2 rounds per day for top events these days, do they?

Maybe it only allows 2 rounds per day every second day.

Oh well, the blitz, lightning, rapid, bughouse,... national conference!! could be held on those spare half days.

Imagine what a fun packed fortnight it would be !!

:D

Mark

Mischa
26-01-2005, 08:10 PM
I am a parent of a junior who, horror of horrors did NOT play up. My reasoning was manifold, but in terms of the posts to date...It was an easier option for my kid to play up but then I realised that he was just trying to avoid the pressure of being expected to win. Learn to play under pressure..sort of... and don't avoid a challenge by playing a tournament where you are not expected to do well. Many parents I spoke to said that what was the point of playing in that tournament as so and so was going to win. This saddens me as it gives the message that you only play where you have a chance of winning. This is junior chess...no one knows what will happen.

firegoat7
27-01-2005, 01:26 AM
Hello,

While I sympathise with No Ideas discussion, I certainly believe that chess is a unique game that offers deep psychological insights into human character. That considered I would ask no idea, "since when has winning been the main focus for chessplayers?", and secondly, "if chess is a competitive game what did you think the outcome would be?"

Look beyond results. If your child shows talent, that talent will manifest itself naturally. Its all about the journey, not specifically one result.

Secondly, competition is not a negative. Competition is good , provided, you enter into it with the right mind framework, in which you don't comprimise yourself. Competition forces you to compete against others in difficult circumstances. This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the result is not the be all and end all.

Stick around chess long enough and it will show you- your self, art, culture, belief and humanity. In that way it is like any art pursuit. Caissia has never been just about the result it has always been lived.

Cheers FG7

Mischa
27-01-2005, 09:02 AM
I agree. I said that I didn't want my junior to choose which tournament to play in based on whether he would be under pressure or not. There were other reasons why he didn't play up, based on what I could manage . I had another junior with me who was playing in the mornings, and a non chess playing kid with me. I don't think I could have had one kid playing in the morning and one in the afternoon and still entertain the two who were not playing at the time.
my junior plays chess for the love of the game but winning is fun.

Thunderspirit
28-01-2005, 08:22 PM
A couple of years ago I had a debate with Brett Tindall, about the pros and cons of 'playing up'. My opinion at the time, is that a keen ambitious player should always play up, but Brett made a good point, that playing in your natural division provides a different sort of pressure. If player 'A' is 1500 and he/she plays in the minor (U1600) than the aims are going to be different than if the same player plays in U2000 event.
A few years back I played Doeberl major and scored 1/5 (I took 2 byes), and at 1100 statistically I had a good event. 2 draws with players 1500+, but I didn't play well, and I didn't really care... so I went off partying into the night...
The last year I played the minor I was about 1550, and my intent was to win. I made it to 4/4, but blew a sandshoe in R6 and ended up on 5/7, I took the event more seriously, because I expected myself 2 win.
Playing up is useful, but its not the be all and end all...

Balance is needed....