PDA

View Full Version : NSWCA January Weekender



Paul S
30-01-2005, 03:19 PM
:doh: You would never know it, but there is (apparently) a NSWCA weekender being played at North Sydney Leagues yesterday and today.

Perhaps the NSWCA wanted to try to keep the numbers playing as low as possible, considering that this is the first post (start of thread) on this tournament (as I type it is mostly over - the final round starts at 4pm today!!!). :rolleyes: Regardless of who is responsible, it is disgraceful that this post of mine is the first bit of publicity (albeit somewhat negative) for this event! :(

Maybe there has been a low player turn out to to the exorbitant entry fees (for those who did not pay up before 25/1/05) and the NSWCA are embarrassed? :hmm:

Why did I not play even though I had this weekend free? Well, two main reasons:
1) Due to not knowing wheteher or not I would have this weekend free until Thursday 27/1/05 afternoon, I would have had to pay a rip-off (for a run of the mill weekender) entry fee of $75 (keep in mind that the prize money is $2330 based on a minimum of 64 players). $75 entry fee is poor value for money for a run of the mill weekender even for someone relatively well off financially like myself - what must pensioners etc think?
2) I object to the NSWCA supporting the dead horse of the GP. I have said enough about this in other threads, so I won't repeat myself here. As a result, I have made a decision not to play in any GP weekenders this year due to the shemozzle of the GP over the last 2 years (although I may make an exception for the Doeberl Cup). I reckon that the NSWCA would have got more entries if it had advertised the tournament as having $2500 in prize money and NO GP category rating (instead of $2330 and Category 2 GP rating). I am not prepared to prop up this GP farce whereby the ACF rips off Australian chess players any more and as a NSWCA member I object to the NSWCA supporting this farce!

Anyway, why has nobody running this tournament bothered to publicise this NSWCA January Weekender event on the BB and elsewhere?

What are the results, how many players, who is arbiter, any incidents etc etc with this event? Or is this expecting too much? Is anyone interested? Does anyone care? Well, it seems that nobody else can be bothered with this event, so why should I?

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 03:56 PM
:doh: You would never know it, but there is (apparently) a NSWCA weekender being played at North Sydney Leagues yesterday and today.

Perhaps the NSWCA wanted to try to keep the numbers playing as low as possible, considering that this is the first post (start of thread) on this tournament (as I type it is mostly over - the final round starts at 4pm today!!!). :rolleyes: Regardless of who is responsible, it is disgraceful that this post of mine is the first bit of publicity (albeit somewhat negative) for this event! :(
Why doesnt this surprise me.
Last year you complained about the time limits and the number of rounds.
We reduced the time limits and increased the round numbers.
Seems you just cant be satisfied.


Maybe there has been a low player turn out to to the exorbitant entry fees (for those who did not pay up before 25/1/05) and the NSWCA are embarrassed? :hmm:
What a load of uninformed rubbish.
The NSWCA Council determined to offer early entry fees lower for this year than for last year. It is $55 this year and $60 last year. We did however decided to increase the fee for those that failed to enter esarly. It was $75 this year and $70 last year.
We did however increase the junior fee from $30 last year to $44 for early entry and from $40 to $60 this year as the junior fees were to low.


Why did I not play even though I had this weekend free? Well, two main reasons:
1) Due to not knowing wheteher or not I would have this weekend free until Thursday 27/1/05 afternoon, I would have had to pay a rip-off (for a run of the mill weekender) entry fee of $75 (keep in mind that the prize money is $2330 based on a minimum of 64 players). $75 entry fee is poor value for money for a run of the mill weekender even for someone relatively well off financially like myself - what must pensioners etc think?
A completely misrepresentation of the situation.
The NSWCA has only ever required pre-registration to get the early entry not pre-payment. As an ex NSWCA Council member you are well aware of this.
In fact I even pointed this out to you when you raised it at the NSWCA AGM.


2) I object to the NSWCA supporting the dead horse of the GP. I have said enough about this in other threads, so I won't repeat myself here. As a result, I have made a decision not to play in any GP weekenders this year due to the shemozzle of the GP over the last 2 years (although I may make an exception for the Doeberl Cup). I reckon that the NSWCA would have got more entries if it had advertised the tournament as having $2500 in prize money and NO GP category rating (instead of $2330 and Category 2 GP rating). I am not prepared to prop up this GP farce whereby the ACF rips off Australian chess players any more and as a NSWCA member I object to the NSWCA supporting this farce!
Yes, well your non support/criticism of the GP is well known.
The NSWCA Council supports the ACF GP.


Anyway, why has nobody running this tournament bothered to publicise this NSWCA January Weekender event on the BB and elsewhere?
Although it wasnt advertised here to suggest the NSWCA didnt advertise this event widely is untrue.

The NSWCA snail mailed each and every recent member and past member with actual details of the event in a mailout prior to new year.

They have since then emailed all NSWCA members with an email adress as a reminder.

The event has been advertised for over a month on the NSWCA website.
It has been advertised in every ACF Bulletin since #298 of 22nd December.
I havent seen it but I believe Peter Parr advertised in in last Mondays SMH.


What are the results, how many players, who is arbiter, any incidents etc etc with this event? Or is this expecting too much? Is anyone interested? Does anyone care? Well, it seems that nobody else can be bothered with this event, so why should I?
It is a weekender.
I would expect the results up early this week on the NSW website.

shaun
30-01-2005, 09:51 PM
I heard it managed to attract an incredibly small turnout of 82 players, which is one of the largest Sydney weekender roll ups I can recall.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 10:28 PM
I heard it managed to attract an incredibly small turnout of 82 players, which is one of the largest Sydney weekender roll ups I can recall.
Thanks for the feedback, Shaun.
We had hoped the lower entry fee for adults and reasonable prize money would attract a good turn-out.

Paul S
30-01-2005, 11:42 PM
Why doesnt this surprise me.
Last year you complained about the time limits and the number of rounds.
We reduced the time limits and increased the round numbers.
Seems you just cant be satisfied.


Yes, OK, I'll admit I was focussing too much on the negatives in my post. :(

Yes, making it 7 rounds and a reduced time limit (to make it playable over 2 days) for this year was a positive step (compared to the silly schedule of last year). :clap:

Still, this doesn't excuse why nobody involved with the running of this tournament gave it no publicity at all on this forum!


What a load of uninformed rubbish.
The NSWCA Council determined to offer early entry fees lower for this year than for last year. It is $55 this year and $60 last year. We did however decided to increase the fee for those that failed to enter esarly. It was $75 this year and $70 last year.
We did however increase the junior fee from $30 last year to $44 for early entry and from $40 to $60 this year as the junior fees were to low.


A $20 differential between registering a few days before the event and turning up on the day (or registering after 25/1/05) for a weekender is excessive. A $10 discount is sufficient. A $75 entry fee (for $2330 prize fund based on 64 players) is too much (especially for average rated players) for a run of the mill weekender.


A completely misrepresentation of the situation.
The NSWCA has only ever required pre-registration to get the early entry not pre-payment. As an ex NSWCA Council member you are well aware of this.
In fact I even pointed this out to you when you raised it at the NSWCA AGM.


Maybe so. However, the way the entry form looks, it appears that one has to post a cheque (ie pre-pay) with the entry form to get the early discount. Maybe the NSWCA should clear up the wording on their entry forms? I know that when I was handling NSWCA tournament enquiries for about 6 months in 2003 that some players had (understandably) been under this impression.



Yes, well your non support/criticism of the GP is well known.
The NSWCA Council supports the ACF GP.

If it was run as it was in 2002 (eg regular GP updates on the website) I would be quite happy for NSWCA events to be part of the GP. However, the GP is now too far gone due to its neglect over the last 2 years and therefore should no longer be supported by the NSWCA.



Although it wasnt advertised here to suggest the NSWCA didnt advertise this event widely is untrue.

The NSWCA snail mailed each and every recent member and past member with actual details of the event in a mailout prior to new year.

They have since then emailed all NSWCA members with an email adress as a reminder.

The event has been advertised for over a month on the NSWCA website.
It has been advertised in every ACF Bulletin since #298 of 22nd December.
I havent seen it but I believe Peter Parr advertised in in last Mondays SMH..

I was referring to the BB (nothing about the January Weekender until my post) and email (I did not receive an email about this event, so I would presume that others would not have got one either). I should have made this clearer in my original post.



It is a weekender.
I would expect the results up early this week on the NSW website.

I am sure they will be.

Trent Parker
30-01-2005, 11:48 PM
there was a number of drop-outs.... ended up being something like 78-79 (or maybe 80) by the end. A lot of names i havent seen before.

There was also a visiting IM who played..... I think he was one of the 3 who got equal first.......

Paul S
30-01-2005, 11:50 PM
I heard it managed to attract an incredibly small turnout of 82 players, which is one of the largest Sydney weekender roll ups I can recall.

Hi Shaun

If that is the case then that is a good result (for a Sydney weekender) and I can be prepared to live with a bit of "egg on my face" under these circumstances! ;)

However, us Sydneysiders still have a way to go to reach the dizzy heights of what you Canberrans have achieved with the Doeberl as far as player numbers go! Anyway, there is a good chance I will see you in Canberra this Easter! :)

Garvinator
31-01-2005, 12:16 AM
Hello Trent,

Can you tell me who was dop so I can get the sp files for 2005 gp points.

Cheers,

Garvin

Trent Parker
31-01-2005, 12:41 AM
Lee Forace was dop but i think it may have been norm greenwood's machine that was used.

pax
31-01-2005, 06:42 AM
It's a weekender for crying out loud - what do you want, live blow by blow updates?

Anyone who wants to play a weekender is not going to come here for info if they have any brains. The info has been available on the NSWCA website for months, and was posted several times on the ACF newsletter. Even someone like me who hasn't played a weekender in about 8 years (until this weekend) managed to know about it.

The visiting IM Emil Ungoreanu (sp?) lost twice on the first day, and didn't show up for the second. Three players finished first on 6 points: FM Erasmus Gerigk (GER), Pedro Tidoy (PHI), and Ronald Yu. Pedro played an incredible combo to beat Erasmus in the last round to catch up after he looked like running away with the tournament.

Trent Parker
31-01-2005, 09:08 AM
You played in the tournament?

Did i play you?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 09:43 AM
Yes, OK, I'll admit I was focussing too much on the negatives in my post. :(

Yes, making it 7 rounds and a reduced time limit (to make it playable over 2 days) for this year was a positive step (compared to the silly schedule of last year). :clap:

Still, this doesn't excuse why nobody involved with the running of this tournament gave it no publicity at all on this forum!
Simple the NSWCA Council advertised it widely through various other channels.


A $20 differential between registering a few days before the event and turning up on the day (or registering after 25/1/05) for a weekender is excessive. A $10 discount is sufficient.
the council does not see it as excessive. the aim is to discourage people from entering late.
A $10 late fee does not encourage enough people to enter early.
As such dont expect a change.


A $75 entry fee (for $2330 prize fund based on 64 players) is too much (especially for average rated players) for a run of the mill weekender.
Stop misrepresenting the situation.
The entry fee is $55. The late fee is $75.


Maybe so. However, the way the entry form looks, it appears that one has to post a cheque (ie pre-pay) with the entry form to get the early discount. Maybe the NSWCA should clear up the wording on their entry forms? I know that when I was handling NSWCA tournament enquiries for about 6 months in 2003 that some players had (understandably) been under this impression.
Be that as it may thats not what you said.
You said:

Due to not knowing wheteher or not I would have this weekend free until Thursday 27/1/05 afternoon, I would have had to pay a rip-off (for a run of the mill weekender) entry fee of $75
That satement has no basis in fact as you well knew you could pre-enter without paying.
Therefore as far as I am concerned it was just an attempted beatup on your part.


If it was run as it was in 2002 (eg regular GP updates on the website) I would be quite happy for NSWCA events to be part of the GP. However, the GP is now too far gone due to its neglect over the last 2 years and therefore should no longer be supported by the NSWCA.
Your thoughts on the GP are well known.
However the NSWCA Council runs chess in NSW not you and the NSWCA Council supports it.


I was referring to the BB (nothing about the January Weekender until my post) and email (I did not receive an email about this event, so I would presume that others would not have got one either). I should have made this clearer in my original post.
Again you are trying to get out from under what you said.
You made it quite clear you were talking about advertising other than just the BB otherwise you would not have used the word "elsewhere" when you said:

Anyway, why has nobody running this tournament bothered to publicise this NSWCA January Weekender event on the BB and elsewhere?

As such your suggestion that you only really meant the BB rings hollow.

pax
31-01-2005, 10:02 AM
You played in the tournament?

Did i play you?

Round 1 ;)

Trent Parker
31-01-2005, 10:25 AM
Round 1 ;)
I thought so..... :D

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 11:20 AM
1 Gerigk, Erasmus OS 2280 6 38:W 39:W 15:W 3:W 4:W 7:W 2:L
2 Tidoy, Pedro OS 2226 6 59:W 32:W 14:W 8:L 11:W 9:W 1:W
3 Yu, Ronald NSW 2092 6 46:W 29:W 31:W 1:L 26:W 12:W 7:W
4 Rej, Tomek NSW 2225 5.5 16:W 23:W 22:W 9:W 1:L 8:W 5:D
5 Hu, Jason NSW 1873 5.5 0:W 19:W 8:L 17:W 28:W 10:W 4:D
6 Bautista, Edgar OS 1870 5.5 69:W 41:D 21:L 54:W 45:W 28:W 15:W
7 Tan, Justin NSW 2257 5 47:W 43:W 26:W 10:W 8:W 1:L 3:L
8 Zvedeniouk, Ilia NSW 1978 5 52:W 36:W 5:W 2:W 7:L 4:L 32:W
9 Yap, Aaron NSW 1892 5 35:W 44:W 68:W 4:L 27:W 2:L 25:W
10 Murray, Bruce D NSW 1990 5 49:W 37:W 27:W 7:L 22:W 5:L 20:W
11 Fitzpatrick, Brian ACT 1927 5 66:W 13:D 41:W 21:W 2:L 25:D 29:W
12 O'chee, Kevin NSW 1983 5 21:D 50:W 45:W 20:D 23:W 3:L 24:W
13 Mendes Da Costa, Alex NSW 1877 5 0:W 11:D 20:L 59:W 39:W 24:D 21:W
14 Suttor, Vincent NSW 1904 5 63:W 76:W 2:L 36:W 24:D 20:D 22:W
15 Stojic, Danny NSW 1968 4.5 64:W 40:W 1:L 37:W 20:D 38:W 6:L
16 Hoole, Jeyaranjan ACT 1524 4.5 4:L 71:W 19:W 39:D 21:D 27:W 31:D
17 Wu, Edwin NSW 1584 4.5 75:W 26:L 34:W 5:L 53:W 31:D 39:W
18 Adler, Nathan NSW 1263 4.5 23:L 58:L 50:W 47:W 36:W 30:D 40:W
19 Grcic, Milan ACT 1841 4.5 65:W 5:L 16:L 69:W 58:W 23:D 38:W
20 Chan, Owen NSW 1835 4 53:W 25:D 13:W 12:D 15:D 14:D 10:L
21 Illingworth, Max NSW 1839 4 12:D 60:W 6:W 11:L 16:D 44:W 13:L
22 Bautista, Elpidio NSW 1850 4 0:W 28:W 4:L 66:W 10:L 37:W 14:L
23 Ali, Mosaddeque ACT 1734 4 18:W 4:L 49:W 68:W 12:L 19:D 30:D
24 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab ACT 1578 4 42:L 65:W 35:W 31:W 14:D 13:D 12:L
25 Escribano, Jose NSW 1611 4 34:W 20:D 0:D 0:D 33:W 11:D 9:L
26 Yu, Michael NSW 1859 4 73:W 17:W 7:L 46:W 3:L 29:L 47:W
27 Paxman, Jonathan WA 1790 4 56:W 33:W 10:L 48:W 9:L 16:L 46:W
28 Bolens, Johny NSW 2109 4 58:W 22:L 47:W 29:W 5:L 6:L 44:W
29 Tse, Jeffrey NSW 1729 4 61:W 3:L 69:W 28:L 46:W 26:W 11:L
30 Redgrave, John NSW 1790 4 0:W 68:L 38:D 41:W 32:D 18:D 23:D
31 Dunn, Michael Gl NSW 1832 4 51:W 72:W 3:L 24:L 64:W 17:D 16:D
32 Slidziunas, John TAS 1737 4 77:W 2:L 64:W 33:D 30:D 48:W 8:L
33 Bollaart, Jeroen OS 1801 4 50:W 27:L 44:W 32:D 25:L 43:D 48:W
34 Wong, Yan NSW 4 25:L 73:W 17:L 35:W 44:L 51:W 59:W
35 Kresinger, Frank NSW 1489 4 9:L 55:W 24:L 34:L 74:W 61:W 45:W
36 Reynolds, Paul J NSW 1636 4 67:W 8:L 72:W 14:L 18:L 65:W 55:W
37 Pickering, Anthony NSW 1657 4 74:W 10:L 62:W 15:L 66:W 22:L 49:W
38 Keuning, Anthony V NSW 1600 3.5 1:L 51:W 30:D 40:W 68:+ 15:L 19:L
39 Doan, Peter NSW 1772 3.5 54:W 1:L 58:W 16:D 13:L 52:W 17:L
40 Descallar, Levi NSW 1757 3.5 57:W 15:L 52:D 38:L 42:W 41:W 18:L
41 Mandla, Blair NSW 1614 3.5 70:W 6:D 11:L 30:L 59:W 40:L 58:W
42 Whiteside, Benjamin NSW 3.5 24:W 45:L 48:L 51:W 40:L 64:W 43:D
43 Rachmadi, Herman NSW 1665 3.5 71:W 7:L 46:L 65:W 49:D 33:D 42:D
44 Low, Frank NSW 1609 3 55:W 9:L 33:L 56:W 34:W 21:L 28:L
45 Kordahi, Nicholas NSW 1741 3 60:D 42:W 12:L 52:W 6:L 49:D 35:L
46 Losh, Gary NSW 1524 3 3:L 77:W 43:W 26:L 29:L 56:W 27:L
47 Dickson, Ian C NSW 1560 3 7:L 56:W 28:L 18:L 54:W 53:W 26:L
48 Troshenkova, Irina NSW 1573 3 68:L 53:W 42:W 27:L 55:W 32:L 33:L
49 Sewell, Rob NSW 1511 3 10:L 61:W 23:L 72:W 43:D 45:D 37:L
50 Forbath, Alex NSW 1633 3 33:L 12:L 18:L 57:L 67:W 74:W 60:W
51 Tracey, Michael J NSW 1454 3 31:L 38:L 75:W 42:L 57:W 34:L 70:W
52 Nichas, John NSW 1595 3 8:L 74:W 40:D 45:L 73:W 39:L 54:D
53 Adler, David NSW 1397 3 20:L 48:L 74:W 76:+ 17:L 47:L 64:W
54 Cohn, Jason NSW 1362 3 39:L 59:D 60:W 6:L 47:L 73:W 52:D
55 Phillips, Andrew NSW 3 44:L 35:L 71:W 63:W 48:L 66:W 36:L
56 Parker, Trent NSW 1367 3 27:L 47:L 67:W 44:L 75:W 46:L 66:W
57 Guo, Emma ACT 1060 3 40:L 64:L 63:L 50:W 51:L 72:W 65:W
58 Greenwood, Norman NSW 1518 2.5 28:L 18:W 39:L 62:W 19:L 60:D 41:L
59 Boyce, Jamie NSW 1547 2.5 2:L 54:D 70:W 13:L 41:L 62:W 34:L
60 Soltysik, Adelaide NSW 1215 2.5 45:D 21:L 54:L 77:D 63:W 58:D 50:L
61 Schuetz, Fred NSW 1260 2.5 29:L 49:L 65:L 67:W 70:W 35:L 63:D
62 Zaja, Tomislav NSW 938 2.5 76:L 0:W 37:L 58:L 69:D 59:L 74:W
63 Ross, Bill NSW 1482 2.5 14:L 70:L 57:W 55:L 60:L 75:W 61:D
64 Korbe, Heinrich NSW 1489 2 15:L 57:W 32:L 70:W 31:L 42:L 53:L
65 Wills, Colin NSW 1424 2 19:L 24:L 61:W 43:L 72:W 36:L 57:L
66 Szeto, Jonathan NSW 1484 2 11:L 67:W 76:W 22:L 37:L 55:L 56:L
67 Beaven, Dieter OS 2 36:L 66:L 56:L 61:L 50:L 69:W 0:W
68 Ungureanu, Emil OS 2373 2 48:W 30:W 9:L 23:L 38:- 0:L 0:
69 Parsons, Colin J NSW 1381 2 6:L 75:W 29:L 19:L 62:D 67:L 72:D
70 Mccormack, Daniel NSW 2 41:L 63:W 59:L 64:L 61:L 71:W 51:L
71 Baldwin, A(Tony) C NSW 1413 2 43:L 16:L 55:L 74:L 77:+ 70:L 75:W
72 Tsui, Edison NSW 755 1.5 0:W 31:L 36:L 49:L 65:L 57:L 69:D
73 Karayi, Valsalan NSW 1426 1.5 26:L 34:L 77:W 0:D 52:L 54:L 0:
74 Frerer, Samantha NSW 941 1 37:L 52:L 53:L 71:W 35:L 50:L 62:L
75 Soltysik, Sebastian NSW 840 1 17:L 69:L 51:L 0:W 56:L 63:L 71:L
76 Nicholson, Scott NSW 1649 1 62:W 14:L 66:L 53:- 0:L 0: 0:
77 Exler, Rudolf NSW 1323 .5 32:L 46:L 73:L 60:D 71:- 0:L 0:

pax
31-01-2005, 11:39 AM
A number of people appear to have recieved 1 point byes in round one. Any idea why this is (or is it a SP glitch)?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 12:22 PM
A number of people appear to have recieved 1 point byes in round one. Any idea why this is (or is it a SP glitch)?
Because they actually won on forfeit.
The arbiter subsequently removed the 5 players who failed to turn up for round 1 and changed it to a 1 point bye.

In hindsight perhaps they should have confirmed that all entrants were actually there before doing the first round draw. This will be discussed at the next NSWCA Council meeting.

pax
31-01-2005, 01:24 PM
Because they actually won on forfeit.
The arbiter subsequently removed the 5 players who failed to turn up for round 1 and changed it to a 1 point bye.


Ah, of course.



In hindsight perhaps they should have confirmed that all entrants were actually there before doing the first round draw. This will be discussed at the next NSWCA Council meeting.

Had they paid? Surely you wouldn't include anyone in the draw who hadn't paid yet?

Thunderspirit
31-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Here are some of my thoughts from the weekender, I would be happy to hear what people think.

Firstly the turn out was great. 80 players for an assocation event was great, it was good to see some new faces in the crowd.

On the GP, I stringly believe that the GP is an important part of Australian chess. It serves as a magnet for keen players who might not have travelled to event if they weren't chasing GP point. I believe it especially helps rural/semi rural events attracting players from the large cities. The year I played 210 games, inlcuded 11GP events in a 12 weeks, this helps the oragnisers get bums on seats.

The prizes: Two players quiered the fact the prizes didn't increase from what was advertised, as the prize pool was depended on 64 players. While it's not the DOP's job, I support Norm's decision as the association in recent years has lost money on events, and it's good for once that the association can take a small profit. Two players commented, one completely accepted the previous reason, while the other was annoyed that I informed the field that Norm has to work out the prizes, implying that they may go up. If they were going to stay the same, just advertise that. I apologized if he had thought he was mislead, though I thought he over reacted some what.

The PC: The assocation's P100 laptop is far too old to be of any use. It is too slow, prone to crashing and a pain to use. While I take full responibility for pairing the R2-3 on the wrong rating, Charles agrees with me when I say it is the organiser's responsibility to make sure the correct ratings are in the machine. Norm informed me that they were on the machine, but concern is it is reasonable to assume the correct list is the default list when importing.

Withdrawals: There were 4. One was IM Emil Urgreaneu (sp), who after loosing 2 games didn't show on the Sunday. If he would have approached me to withdraw I would have not hestitated. It's wrong to try an impose Australian stanards when in Europe there would have been no issue at all.

There were a couple of others. One was a genuine illness- Ok, and another was "I'm not playing well, and I'm busy." I got a little grumpy claiming if he was too busy he shouldn't have played, but in the end it was no problem. No-one got a forfiet, so I pulled him out. The 4th was a little wierd, it was a poor withdrawal by protest, which resulted in a forfiet, it's a matter for the association.

I'm very frustrated at the moment in regards to DOPing and don't plan to do any in the near future. This partially the result of spending a mth in Mt Buller tearing my hair out, but I wouldn't be DOPing any more NSWCA events, until there is a new laptop- It's a joke. I'll only DOP good, well organised events- Eg Doeberl Cup. (Though I'll be in Europe this year.)

Food for thought.... :owned:

Garvinator
31-01-2005, 02:52 PM
Bill or Lee,

Can you send me the sp files at ggrayggray@hotmail.com please.

Cheers,

Garvin

pax
31-01-2005, 03:32 PM
Couple of points in response to Lee's post.

*Great turnout, agreed.
*The late start and late finish to day 1 was a bit unfortunate. I suspect this problem wouldn't have occurred (or at least not as badly) had it not been for the laptop and ratings problems.
*Large number of Rd 1 forfeits. As alluded to previously on this thread, perhaps players (registered or not) should be required to "check in" 15 minutes before the start of the round. Any players not checked in will not be entered in the first round draw.
*Definitely agree that it's high time the association got a new laptop - the P100 looks like a bit of a relic.
*Thought Emil's withdrawal a bit pathetic. At the very least he should inform the DOP that he isn't planning to turn up.
*Would have liked to see the occasional crosstable or standings posted, especially after the penultimate round.
*I think an event of over 80 players really needs at least two arbiters or one arbiter and one non-playing organiser (Charles Z was present for only a couple of rounds). This allows one to be "roaming" and observing games, while the other one posts standings, sorts out computer stuff etc.
*Venue was ok, except for a couple of fire alarms, and when "Bjorn Again" started their sound check in the middle of the final round :eek:

My final comment is that volunteer organisers and arbiters get a lot of criticism and very little thanks for the job that they do. Without them there would be no chess, so thanks to Norm and Lee for the hard work on the weekend. On the whole it was a highly successful tournament.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 03:42 PM
Here are some of my thoughts from the weekender, I would be happy to hear what people think.

Firstly the turn out was great. 80 players for an assocation event was great, it was good to see some new faces in the crowd.

On the GP, I stringly believe that the GP is an important part of Australian chess. It serves as a magnet for keen players who might not have travelled to event if they weren't chasing GP point. I believe it especially helps rural/semi rural events attracting players from the large cities. The year I played 210 games, inlcuded 11GP events in a 12 weeks, this helps the oragnisers get bums on seats.

The prizes: Two players quiered the fact the prizes didn't increase from what was advertised, as the prize pool was depended on 64 players. While it's not the DOP's job, I support Norm's decision as the association in recent years has lost money on events, and it's good for once that the association can take a small profit. Two players commented, one completely accepted the previous reason, while the other was annoyed that I informed the field that Norm has to work out the prizes, implying that they may go up. If they were going to stay the same, just advertise that. I apologized if he had thought he was mislead, though I thought he over reacted some what.

The PC: The assocation's P100 laptop is far too old to be of any use. It is too slow, prone to crashing and a pain to use. While I take full responibility for pairing the R2-3 on the wrong rating, Charles agrees with me when I say it is the organiser's responsibility to make sure the correct ratings are in the machine. Norm informed me that they were on the machine, but concern is it is reasonable to assume the correct list is the default list when importing.
The NSWCA is currently looking at buying a new laptop and it should have happened prior to the start of the City of Sydney.



Withdrawals: There were 4. One was IM Emil Urgreaneu (sp), who after loosing 2 games didn't show on the Sunday. If he would have approached me to withdraw I would have not hestitated. It's wrong to try an impose Australian stanards when in Europe there would have been no issue at all.
There were a couple of others. One was a genuine illness- Ok, and another was "I'm not playing well, and I'm busy." I got a little grumpy claiming if he was too busy he shouldn't have played, but in the end it was no problem. No-one got a forfiet, so I pulled him out. The 4th was a little wierd, it was a poor withdrawal by protest, which resulted in a forfiet, it's a matter for the association.
Yes, definitely the council will be looking into that one.
If he was unhappy he should have informed you prior to the 4th round draw being done.


I'm very frustrated at the moment in regards to DOPing and don't plan to do any in the near future. This partially the result of spending a mth in Mt Buller tearing my hair out,
Understandable.


but I wouldn't be DOPing any more NSWCA events, until there is a new laptop- It's a joke. I'll only DOP good, well organised events- Eg Doeberl Cup. (Though I'll be in Europe this year.)
As I said above its being rectified.

BTW thanks for arbitering the event.

Thunderspirit
01-02-2005, 12:28 AM
A few responses to Pax. One is regarding cross tables. I forgot to put any up, but I would have been happy to, if I was asked...

Secondly, having 2 DOP's though nice it is not normally needed, though for 80 players it should definately be considered. Large events such as the Queen's B'day Weekender over 3 days, with 2 events in the past has had 2 DOP's.

I would also like to float the idea that the fee for DOP's which is $200 per 2 day weekender should be on the basis of 50 players or less. For events 50+ it should be increased to $250.00

Thanks for your kinds words on my work... :clap:

pax
01-02-2005, 09:13 AM
I would also like to float the idea that the fee for DOP's which is $200 per 2 day weekender should be on the basis of 50 players or less. For events 50+ it should be increased to $250.00

A matter for the association, obviously, but I think it is certainly warranted. Stress levels are significantly higher with large crowds like that!

Incidentally, I should add that I would still regard a DOP recieving a small fee like $200 as a "volunteer". It's a lot of time to sacrifice unless you really want to do it!

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 09:17 AM
A matter for the association, obviously, but I think it is certainly warranted. Stress levels are significantly higher with large crowds like that!

Incidentally, I should add that I would still regard a DOP recieving a small fee like $200 as a "volunteer". It's a lot of time to sacrifice unless you really want to do it!
I suspect that there are quite a few chess players who believe the dop's shouldnt be paid at all :eek:

pax
01-02-2005, 09:20 AM
I suspect that there are quite a few chess players who believe the dop's shouldnt be paid at all :eek:

Great, they can all go and play chess in the park, because there won't be any tournaments!

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 09:23 AM
Great, they can all go and play chess in the park, because there won't be any tournaments!
funny, one of the bb posters does exactly that ;) :lol: I dont agree with their opinion, I do think though that just like other things, with paying dops comes an expectation that the dop is a decent one who knows the laws of chess well and I am curious as to how much standardised testing is really done, which I suspect is zero.

pax
01-02-2005, 09:37 AM
funny, one of the bb posters does exactly that ;) :lol: I dont agree with their opinion, I do think though that just like other things, with paying dops comes an expectation that the dop is a decent one who knows the laws of chess well and I am curious as to how much standardised testing is really done, which I suspect is zero.

I think if you want standardized testing and qualifications you probably would need to pay them more than $10 an hour.

Rincewind
01-02-2005, 10:03 AM
funny, one of the bb posters does exactly that ;) :lol: I dont agree with their opinion, I do think though that just like other things, with paying dops comes an expectation that the dop is a decent one who knows the laws of chess well and I am curious as to how much standardised testing is really done, which I suspect is zero.

Australia has a number of IAs which (I believe) requires a level of standardised testing > 0. Not sure if those with IA titles are paid more. But I would think it creates some sort of expectation they they are vaguely familiar with the laws of chess. ;)

pax
01-02-2005, 10:09 AM
Australia has a number of IAs which (I believe) requires a level of standardised testing > 0. Not sure if those with IA titles are paid more. But I would think it creates some sort of expectation they they are vaguely familiar with the laws of chess. ;)

Of course, but AFAIK DOPs for your average weekender are not required to be IAs. I imagine tourneys which require IAs (Doeberl for instance) probably pay a good bit more.

Rincewind
01-02-2005, 10:29 AM
Of course, but AFAIK DOPs for your average weekender are not required to be IAs. I imagine tourneys which require IAs (Doeberl for instance) probably pay a good bit more.

Perhaps but then perhaps IAs are more prevalent than you think. According to the FIDE website we have 15 IAs:

Bekker, Gary
Eime, Roland
Frew, John
Koshnitsky, Evelyn
Lyons, Jason
Malitis, Edwin
Margan, Susan
Needleman, Morris
Parr, Peter
Perrin, Kevin
Rogers, Cathy
Sorokina, Anastasia
Thomas, Alan
Weeks, Manuel
Zworestine, Charles

shaun
01-02-2005, 10:40 AM
Australia has a number of IAs which (I believe) requires a level of standardised testing > 0. Not sure if those with IA titles are paid more. But I would think it creates some sort of expectation they they are vaguely familiar with the laws of chess. ;)

There is no standardised testing in becoming an IA. You simply have to be an arbiter at events FIDE recognise as international/significant (eg National Championships, FIDE tournaments, International Opens/RRs) and recieve a good report from the Chief Arbiter. A minimum of 4 events over 7 years is required.

shaun
01-02-2005, 10:41 AM
Of course, but AFAIK DOPs for your average weekender are not required to be IAs. I imagine tourneys which require IAs (Doeberl for instance) probably pay a good bit more.

At this stage it is looking like the Doeberl Cup will have a non-IA arbiting team this year, which is perfectly OK as there is no requirment for the Doeberl Cup to have IA's on the arbiting team.

pax
01-02-2005, 12:07 PM
At this stage it is looking like the Doeberl Cup will have a non-IA arbiting team this year, which is perfectly OK as there is no requirment for the Doeberl Cup to have IA's on the arbiting team.

Fair enough. I'm sure they will be experienced arbiters in any case.

Rincewind
01-02-2005, 05:02 PM
There is no standardised testing in becoming an IA. You simply have to be an arbiter at events FIDE recognise as international/significant (eg National Championships, FIDE tournaments, International Opens/RRs) and recieve a good report from the Chief Arbiter. A minimum of 4 events over 7 years is required.

Thanks for the info Shaun. So I guess there is a testing of sorts but its standardness is not exactly rigorous as you say. I would have thought FIDE would have had some sort of examination process, but perhaps the effort required would be too much for them to bear.

Lucena
07-02-2005, 11:22 AM
Had they paid? Surely you wouldn't include anyone in the draw who hadn't paid yet?Actually it's quite common.

Bob1
07-02-2005, 08:43 PM
Thanks for the info Shaun. So I guess there is a testing of sorts but its standardness is not exactly rigorous as you say. I would have thought FIDE would have had some sort of examination process, but perhaps the effort required would be too much for them to bear.
The process is far more rigorous than you think.
4 (major) events in 7 years !
This needs stamina and commitment.
It is realistically measured by others that have made the requirements and put their names as recommendation.

{btw the 5 people in Shaun's list that I know are more than qualified for any international chess event - I assume the others are equals}


Face it - in chess nearly 50% of players think they have come off worse than their opponent in any game - so they think they can take this frustration out on the poor old DOP(e)
If the players don't get to them then the petty politics do.
Arbiters are human - and will and do make mistakes - it's a learning process.

Few chess organisers have the stamina to go the distance.
They all have to start at the begining - a few junior or club events then eventualy (assuming they survive this trial by fire) they get invited to assist in a BIG event. This puts them in a stressful situation - particularly when they have to make tough decisions against very experienced players.
(How could I explain to a GM that my interpretation of the laws of chess was different to his?)

Perhaps there should be a new FIDE title - SUPER IA
8 (major) events in 7 years

Rincewind
07-02-2005, 09:24 PM
The process is far more rigorous than you think.
4 (major) events in 7 years !
This needs stamina and commitment.
It is realistically measured by others that have made the requirements and put their names as recommendation.

I'm sure the rigors of the requirements are substantial. I was commenting on the standardness. If you like the uniformity of preparation and assessment of candidates for the IA title.

I didn't mean to imply that they were easy to get at all.

Alan Shore
07-02-2005, 09:34 PM
The process is far more rigorous than you think.
4 (major) events in 7 years !
This needs stamina and commitment.
It is realistically measured by others that have made the requirements and put their names as recommendation.


If you arbit a Zonal does this mean you can automatically qualify for an IA title? ;)