PDA

View Full Version : Victorian JUNIOR Open 2005



ursogr8
11-02-2005, 07:52 AM
For 2005, the U18, U16, and U14 Vic JUNIOR Open is scheduled over the two week-ends
April 23, 24;
and
April 30, May 1

Full details can be accessed through this link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/05_vic_junior.htm) .

The Under 12, Under 10, Under 8, Boys and Girls are scheduled later in May >

8 rounds. One weekend: May 14, 15.

starter

ursogr8
01-04-2005, 10:06 AM
From the minutes of the organising comittee >

It would be useful on the bulletin board to provide an announcement along the lines that after *years of playoff schemozzles* the organisers have persuaded CV to accept titles decided on countback. This might stir up a bit of controversy.

starter

Mischa
01-04-2005, 10:24 AM
You know why I am happy with this!

ursogr8
01-04-2005, 10:38 AM
^
Err
No, noidea...I don't.
But I think you are going to tell me? :uhoh: ;)

(I was not at last year's VIC Junior)

starter

Mischa
01-04-2005, 10:43 AM
James lost the play off, but would have won in a count back.

arosar
01-04-2005, 10:56 AM
Some people reckon that titles should be decided by play and not by mathematics.

AR

Mischa
01-04-2005, 10:59 AM
But the play off's are a totally different type of chess to the one being played in the actual tournament.

arosar
01-04-2005, 11:13 AM
But it's still chess, no?

AR

Mischa
01-04-2005, 11:22 AM
But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

jenni
01-04-2005, 11:35 AM
But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

This is one of these arguements that are unwinnable. Anyone who has looked at countbacks knows that in most cases you may as well toss the names in a hat and pull one out.

On the other hand it always seems to be a shame to decide sometimes 2 weeks of long game play, by a 15 or 5 minute game. eg. Vincent Suttor who had sat on board 1 for almost the whole tournament in Mt Buller. A shock last round loss put him tied for 1st and he was never going to win a playoff against Moulthun the king of fast chess.

I guess I lean marginally towards fast time playoffs as a pragmatic solution. At least then you can say the winner is good at multiple chess genres.

arosar
01-04-2005, 11:36 AM
But a totally different kind of chess. A 15 minute or 5 minute play off involves a different appraoch don't you think? Regardless.....If you enter a competition that tests a certain skill, why shold the winner be decided on a separate competition for a seperate skill?

At the end of the day, it's still chess. You just think and move more quickly. That's all.

And besides, play-offs are ahelluvalot more exciting. Countbank decisions, on the other hand, are complete fizzers. I've always felt that there's something improper about merely looking at a few numbers and declaring some bastard the champ. Do the business over the board. We live and die OTB. That's it!

AR

Mischa
01-04-2005, 11:38 AM
I argue not only from the piont of view of James' last Vic. Junior, but also from this year's Aus. Junior. If James had not run out of time and had beaten his opponent, there would have been a play off that James would have possibly won. If a count back, James would have come second.

Mischa
01-04-2005, 11:42 AM
What is the problem with having equal firsts?

Recherché
01-04-2005, 11:42 AM
Personally I favour long-format playoffs (two game match at original time control). Obviously this isn't suitable for all tournaments, but I believe it's worth allowing for it for really important events, especially national titles.

Mischa
01-04-2005, 11:45 AM
In last year's Vic. Junior. James had to play off against an opponent who had had about an hour's rest. James came from a loss, was given 5 minutes, late at night, no drink break or food break or even toilet break just straight to the playoff. He had had a very long and difficult game. His play off opponent didn't and had time to prepare.

Garvinator
01-04-2005, 11:47 AM
what happens when you get five or so players tying for first?

arosar
01-04-2005, 11:49 AM
What is the problem with having equal firsts?

That's a different question altogether, isn't it? The answer is nothing. All I'm saying is, if we must choose an outright winner, the way to go about it is to decide OTB - not by magic tricks with fancy numbers.

AR

Recherché
01-04-2005, 11:50 AM
What is the problem with having equal firsts?

Well, the money is always split regardless, so I there isn't one so far as the prizes go.

The main issues is titles and/or trophies. Generally there's only one trophy to be handed out, and generally it's preferred that there is only one "Australian Junior Champion".

Personally I don't see a problem with shared titles, but I think a lot of people do. As for the trophies, perhaps duplicates could be made, but this would have to come out of the tournament budget somewhere, and there would still be problems with perpetual trophies like the Doeberl Cup.

Mischa
01-04-2005, 11:51 AM
They count back until only two remain. Then a playoff. So they use both ways. Why not a 5 way draw? They would each share the prize money anyway. In junior tournaments it is only about who gets the trophy and the title. Which seems a bit harsh on them if the came equal first.

Rincewind
01-04-2005, 01:19 PM
Some people reckon that titles should be decided by play and not by mathematics.

All tournaments are decided by mathematics. After all, to determine even an outright winner you need to add up the scores.

Appropriate tie-breaks are useful especially in weekenders when the format cannot allow for extra time to decide the event.

Blitz is not always the best solution, especially for important events at long time controls since it is assumed the winner of the tournament is the best player at the usual time control and not just the best blitzer of the people who finished equal first.

Unlike your later inferences time breaking systems do not lack tranparency and do have a rationale behind their design. They are also widely used throughout the chess playing world from weekenders to reasonably obscure GM events like Linares.

rob
01-04-2005, 02:09 PM
Personally I favour long-format playoffs (two game match at original time control). Obviously this isn't suitable for all tournaments, but I believe it's worth allowing for it for really important events, especially national titles.

I agree with the above sentiment - events should be planned to anticipate for play-offs. Perhaps events such as Nationals should have Lightning Championships on the last day so that 'not too quick' play-offs could be held during that time.

arosar
01-04-2005, 02:09 PM
All tournaments are decided by mathematics. After all, to determine even an outright winner you need to add up the scores.

Yes but there is a big difference between piling up your ones, zeros and halves and someone looking up some magic number and chanting, "Abaracadabra zeesboomba the winner is . . ." It's all a bit of hocus-pocus to me.

Look, I don't deny the usefulness of a magical countback. It's quick and easy. And yes, shifting from one TC to another, faster, one has a certain limitation. But at least everything is decided OTB.

AR

Rincewind
01-04-2005, 02:48 PM
Look, I don't deny the usefulness of a magical countback. It's quick and easy. And yes, shifting from one TC to another, faster, one has a certain limitation. But at least everything is decided OTB.

When they start having G90+30s/move playoffs to decide Blitz events than I will agree with you. Until then it is just shifting the scales in favour of the blitz player which is just 90% rubbish woodshifting.

firegoat7
02-04-2005, 09:44 AM
All tournaments are decided by mathematics. After all, to determine even an outright winner you need to add up the scores.
Absolutism. What if people didn't play chess? would the tournament be decided by mathematics then? What if when they played chess they didn't keep a score but just moved from table A?




Blitz is not always the best solution, especially for important events at long time controls since it is assumed the winner of the tournament is the best player at the usual time control and not just the best blitzer of the people who finished equal first.

While I agree it may not always be the best solution. What I would say is that its closer to chess then mathematics. Furthermore, arguements against blitz play offs are usually perpetuated by blitz hacks. Moreover, At least with a blitz finish you still get the chance to have a winner and loser based on a competition. Personally I like to see a clear winner and a clear loser, the drama of the blitz finish makes it much more exciting. If you lose, the only person you can blame is yourself, for being such a CHOKER

firegoat7
02-04-2005, 09:56 AM
Until then it is just shifting the scales in favour of the blitz player which is just 90% rubbish woodshifting.

As for this statement it is total nonsense. Where is your evidence and on what scientific methodology do you base this statistical assertion?

Cheers Fg7

Rincewind
02-04-2005, 10:08 AM
Absolutism. What if people didn't play chess? would the tournament be decided by mathematics then? What if when they played chess they didn't keep a score but just moved from table A?

Hardly. You just failed to understand my point. Although this seems an habitual problem for you, please read again and then if you're still having poblems ask nicely and I might try to explain it to you.


While I agree it may not always be the best solution. What I would say is that its closer to chess then mathematics.

The fact that you continue to perpertrate Amiel's fallacy is proof that you didn't understand what I was trying to say at all.


Furthermore, arguements against blitz play offs are usually perpetuated by blitz hacks.

You're arguments are nonsensical. Of course Blitz champs will argue in favour of Blitz playoff and Blitz bunnies will argue against. I have no problem with that. I don't see how it strengthens the case FOR Blitz playoffs. It is irrelevent.


Moreover, At least with a blitz finish you still get the chance to have a winner and loser based on a competition.

The scores in a tie-break are not made up. They are generated through the competition by transparent means.


Personally I like to see a clear winner and a clear loser, the drama of the blitz finish makes it much more exciting. If you lose, the only person you can blame is yourself, for being such a CHOKER

The tiebreak system also provides a clear winner and clear loser. Or are you trying to pervert the meaning of the word 'clear' here?

I doubt that 'an exciting finish' is one of the main objectives of a serious chess competition.

If you lose against a good blitz player then can blame yourself for wasting your time studying chess when you should have been practicing woodshuffling at high speed.

Rincewind
02-04-2005, 10:57 AM
As for this statement it is total nonsense. Where is your evidence and on what scientific methodology do you base this statistical assertion?

Tell me fg, do you know anyone who plays stronger blitz than standard chess? Not in comparison with other players, obviously there are plenty of those. But someone who if they sat down to play themselves with 90 minutes on one side of a clock and 5 minutes on the other, that the clone with 5 minutes would win a significant number of games more than the other.

firegoat7
02-04-2005, 11:15 AM
Hardly. You just failed to understand my point. Although this seems an habitual problem for you, please read again and then if you're still having poblems ask nicely and I might try to explain it to you.
How do you know I misunderstand your point? What makes you so confident in your claims? All I did was ask you some questions, seems as if you still have trouble accepting that some people might believe your claims are false.

Here is the context again



All tournaments are decided by mathematics. After all, to determine even an outright winner you need to add up the scores.

I previously gave you two examples against the absolutism of your claim. Is it necessary for me to repeat the same post? As for the attitude about 'habitual problem' or 'having problems understanding' I will let that pass through to the keeper for the moment. I would like to point out however, that I am reasonably confident that my objections are real scoring shots as oppossed to the imaginary balls you delivered.



The fact that you continue to perpertrate Amiel's fallacy is proof that you didn't understand what I was trying to say at all. Is it? or is it more in line with 'the fact' that AR may be ultimately right.



I don't see how it strengthens the case FOR Blitz playoffs. The point is that some people believe that in the appropriate circumstances 'blitz' is closer to chess then mathematical tie-breakers. If you want to continue that point then we can discuss it, but you have to allow us to argue the point without deriding it, because you cannot understand it, nor want to understand it.




The scores in a tie-break are not made up. They are generated through the competition by transparent means.

True, but they also have their own perculiar and arbitary natures which Amiel has pointed out. If you really want to discuss this point we could provide empirical examples.



The tiebreak system also provides a clear winner and clear loser. Or are you trying to pervert the meaning of the word 'clear' here? I do not mean to pervert any meaning of the word. If you want me to define it, I would say in this context I meant it to mean - obtaining a desired result with an understanding achieved from direct competition with the appropriate contestants.




I doubt that 'an exciting finish' is one of the main objectives of a serious chess competition. I beg to differ.




If you lose against a good blitz player then can blame yourself for wasting your time studying chess when you should have been practicing woodshuffling at high speed. Look Barry, if you want to engage in serious discussion about the nature of blitz and its relation to tournament chess and peoples undertandings of these connections, then I am willing to talk to you, since I am interested in the topic.

If however, you don't want to answer any question that either challenges your irrational outpouring against blitz (no-statistical data-I have already racked up the point there) or conflicts with your
negative impressions of blitz (ie woodshuffling) then you may as well just talk to yourself.

The statement you give above is a classical example of this. Its emotive, has no demonstrated scientific basis, and claims to be authoritive. In reality its just poorly expressed subjective opinion, you sure you ain't trying to be the next John Laws?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
02-04-2005, 11:20 AM
Tell me fg, do you know anyone who plays stronger blitz than standard chess? Not in comparison with other players, obviously there are plenty of those. But someone who if they sat down to play themselves with 90 minutes on one side of a clock and 5 minutes on the other, that the clone with 5 minutes would win a significant number of games more than the other.

Im not sure this is a reliable scientific methodology nor am I sure if the interpretation of the projected result means anything.

But it seems like harmless fun so..Yes...the answer is Yes, I do know of such people.

Cheers Fg7
P.S why is the comparison with other players not a valid interpretation?

Rincewind
02-04-2005, 12:04 PM
P.S why is the comparison with other players not a valid interpretation?

On reading comments like this (and others immediatly previous) I wonder if you are an intelligent troll or just incredibly thick. Either way, I don't see how I can we can have a meaningsul discussion on any matter and I regret replying to your original message. Please don't reply to any of my posts in the future expecting a response from me as I will be endeavouring to not provide one unless completely necessary.

firegoat7
02-04-2005, 12:32 PM
On reading comments like this (and others immediatly previous) I wonder if you are an intelligent troll or just incredibly thick. Either way, I don't see how I can we can have a meaningsul discussion on any matter and I regret replying to your original message. Please don't reply to any of my posts in the future expecting a response from me as I will be endeavouring to not provide one unless completely necessary.

You really get heated up over nothing. All I am really doing is contesting some of your more absolutist claims. You then take the 5th amendment walking around like the hapless Sgt Schultz ranting..."I know nothing...nothing"

It dosen't have to be like this. Stand up for your convinctions, work through the discussion. Taking your bat and ball home because you don't like the score really is bad form.

I mean honestly Bazza, your becoming increasingly lame if you believe that you have been hard done by in this specific discussion.

Cheers Fg7

P.S I have highlighted your emotional response to being hit for a six. You may want to reflect on why it was a no-ball.

P.P.S quack quack

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 01:04 PM
Tell me fg, do you know anyone who plays stronger blitz than standard chess? Not in comparison with other players, obviously there are plenty of those. But someone who if they sat down to play themselves with 90 minutes on one side of a clock and 5 minutes on the other, that the clone with 5 minutes would win a significant number of games more than the other.

For me, this is dependent upon the number of alcoholic beverages I have consumed. ;)

Davidflude
02-04-2005, 01:27 PM
There are always going to be practical problems.

My view is that if it is reasonable there should be a playoff between all players on the same score using the original time control. This works well in a club situation where all players should be available on club nights. It is not going to work well if this is a tournament played on successive days and you want a result at the end of the tournament.

I would use a count back if and only if the tournament is a round robin. In my opinion there is too much chance involved in using a countback in a swiss tounament and the results are suspect.

Therefore we should make allowance for play-offs.

I make the following suggestions.

1) All players who finish on the winning score should take place in the play off.

2) There should be at least a fifteen minute break between the end of the
last game and the start of the play off.

3) If there are more than two players in the play off then the draw should be
determined first and then the players positions in the draw allocated randomly (getting the bye in the first round of a play-off is often an advantage).

4) If at all possible play-offs should be no faster than allegro (fifteen minutes
for the whole game).

5) If it becomes clear even before all games in the tournament are completed who the players will be in the play off then the play off should be commenced as soon as all participants in the play off have had a fifteen minute break.

6) In carrying out the playoff arbiters should watch all games and (this is controversial) no spectators.

Now to tell you about a play off from long ago. Even though all the chess officials involved are dead and buried I shall be carefull about what I say.

1) As a schoolboy I was involved in a play off.

2) I was told that the play off would be at my opponents club that night not
at my club the following night.

3) When I arrived I was informed that the toss had already taken place and that I was black. (I had enough sense not to throw a wobbly.

4) after I won the game I was presented with a book prize. My opponent had
remarked to me earlier that he thought it was a very good book.

5) They even spelled my name wrong in the inscription in the book.

Rincewind
02-04-2005, 01:54 PM
For me, this is dependent upon the number of alcoholic beverages I have consumed. ;)

I hadn't thought of that. In very poor (or very drunk) players they might play better the less time they had to think. However, for the majority of (sober) players thinking improves the quality of their play. Hence their blitz play is at a lower strength.

For the purposes of my argument we'll assume the player is stronger than a random move generator.

ursogr8
09-04-2005, 11:27 PM
Starter, had a query today re: no play offs in Vic junior. Was asked what form of countback will be instigated. hope you can help.

hi noidea

I went searching to see if the organiser_honcho had put the countback rules up on the VIC Junior web-site.
And I found some joy that I would like to share with you.
Let us both click (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/vic_junior_rules.htm) together . :D ;)


starter

ps..........moved you question to this thread because I thought it better here.

ursogr8
09-04-2005, 11:33 PM
I am not sure if the Arbiter knows this as yet, :uhoh: :uhoh: ;)
> for tournament #2, in the VIC Junior (the one designed for the micro-juniors), he is going to run a briefing session from 9am onwards on how the tournament runs.

I am guessing this might cover clocks, scoring, is transfer allowable, countback rules, etc. :D

Highly recommended for some.


starter

Mischa
10-04-2005, 01:07 PM
thanks starter.

Mischa
10-04-2005, 01:14 PM
You think I should attend the briefing session?
But then I might have an idea!

HappyFriend
10-04-2005, 11:13 PM
Don't put yourself down noidea you are full of good ideas! I suggest renaming yourself "Bright ideas". Anyone here picks on noidea watch out!
By the way did anyone here adore the Popes carcass?

ursogr8
11-04-2005, 08:45 AM
You think I should attend the briefing session?
But then I might have an idea!

I think that osmosis has allowed you to progress beyond the need
to attend the briefing session, noidea (aka... :uhoh: ).


Don't put yourself down noidea you are full of good ideas! I suggest renaming yourself "Bright ideas". Anyone here picks on noidea watch out!
By the way did anyone here adore the Popes carcass?

hi HF

There are few words not to be used on this thread my friend....Pope, God, Evolution, Free choice ..... ;)
They attract non-useful posts on a thread that is essentially for the
Vic Junior OPEN 2005.

starter

Mischa
11-04-2005, 12:00 PM
You may be right Starter...so changed my name!

Mischa
11-04-2005, 12:15 PM
Hello HappyFriend. And thank you.I have another hero!

ursogr8
16-04-2005, 10:46 PM
Tournament 1 starts next weekend. for VIC Junior titles.
Details available through this link. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/05_vic_junior.htm)

starter

Mischa
18-04-2005, 07:51 PM
Is there anywhere I can go to find out the playing schedule? There seems to be no times for the games listed anywhere...or am I looking on the wrong place?

ursogr8
18-04-2005, 08:15 PM
Is there anywhere I can go to find out the playing schedule? There seems to be no times for the games listed anywhere...or am I looking on the wrong place?

hi Rowena

I wouldn't ever say you were looking in the wrong place, but if you look in this place (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/vic_junior_rules.htm) then I can say you are looking in the right place.

regards
Trevor

Mischa
18-04-2005, 08:37 PM
Thank you Trevor,
I opened that page but didn't scroll down.
I had a few people ask me the same question, so not only me.
Rowena

ursogr8
20-04-2005, 08:28 PM
Thank you Trevor,
I opened that page but didn't scroll down.
I had a few people ask me the same question, so not only me.
Rowena


Yes, I agree...I have pointed it out previously myself.

Just a reminder ALL Victorian Juniors
Tournament 1 starts this coming week-end for VIC Junior titles.
Details available through the Box Hill web-site link.


starter

Mischa
20-04-2005, 08:36 PM
and don't forget to scroll down!!

klyall
23-04-2005, 03:24 PM
Round one of the Victorian Junior Chess Championships - Under 18's started this morning at Box Hill with a field of 39 players, four of whom were girls.

There were no major upsets in round one.

Some problems with the internet connection may delay results. It is hoped that the first round games will be posted on the Box Hill Chess site this evening or tomorrow morning.

jenni
23-04-2005, 03:39 PM
Round one of the Victorian Junior Chess Championships - Under 18's started this morning at Box Hill with a field of 39 players, four of whom were girls.

There were no major upsets in round one.

Some problems with the internet connection may delay results. It is hoped that the first round games will be posted on the Box Hill Chess site this evening or tomorrow morning.
Thanks Kerry - Chess results addicts like myself always appreciate news!

ursogr8
23-04-2005, 06:54 PM
Some problems with the internet connection may delay results. It is hoped that the first round games will be posted on the Box Hill Chess site this evening or tomorrow morning.


I suppose having Fludy in charge of the Internet connection could be called a problem...but I think he is better than that. :uhoh: ;)

Here is some detail; the pairings for tomorrow's 3rd round: >


1 Jia, Jing Qu 1769 [2] : Stojic, Dusan 1969 [2]
2 Wallis, Christhopher 1950 [2] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1781 [2]
3 Lin, Zhigen 1852 [2] : Muthusamy, Reubban 1767 [2]
4 Jager, Jesse 1890 [1.5] : Yap, Aylwin 1247 [2]
5 Morris, James 1505 [1.5] : Sunder, Vijay 901 [1.5]
6 Van Dijk, Devrim 1675 [1] : Rozenblat, Vanja 1128 [1]
7 Potter, Matthew 1569 [1] : Trott, Timothy 1101 [1]
8 Potter, Daniel 1152 [1] : Yu, Derek 1405 [1]
9 Vijayakumar, Rengan 1373 [1] : Somaskathan, Aingaran 1086 [1]
10 Drew, Phillip 1115 [1] : Schön, Eugene 1343 [1]
11 Glenton, Alan 1312 [1] : Papac, Luka 1001 [1]
12 Lauder, Natasha 1004 [1] : Potter, Michael 1299 [1]
13 Tang, Jason 1279 [1] : Lau, Aaron 354 [1]
14 Aghabayev, Farid 1191 [.5] : Yu, Sally 958 [1]
15 Kenmure, Jamie 913 [0] : Balachandran, Shananthan 601 [0]
16 La, Jimmy 751 [0] : Wang, Shuyu 885 [0]
17 Cameron, James 801 [0] : Chow, KeLi 558 [0]
18 Sullivan, Brent 401 [0] : Iversen, Matthew

starter

ursogr8
23-04-2005, 06:58 PM
And here is a cross-table, (or a happy-table depending on your position in the hierarchy :lick: ) >>

1 Wallis, Christhopher 21:W 12:W 3:
2 Lin, Zhigen 22:W 16:W 6:
3 Vijayakumar, Rukman 23:W 15:W 1:
4 Jia, Jing Qu 26:W 18:W 5:
5 Stojic, Dusan 20:W 11:W 4:
6 Muthusamy, Reubban 30:W 17:W 2:
7 Yap, Aylwin 31:W 14:W 8:
8 Jager, Jesse 25:W 9:D 7:
9 Morris, James 27:W 8:D 10:
10 Sunder, Vijay 28:W 19:D 9:
11 Potter, Matthew 37:+ 5:L 27:
12 Yu, Derek 13:W 1:L 20:
13 Lau, Aaron 12:L 0:W 19:
14 Van Dijk, Devrim 32:W 7:L 21:
15 Vijayakumar, Rengan 36:W 3:L 22:
16 Schön, Eugene 33:W 2:L 25:
17 Glenton, Alan 34:W 6:L 24:
18 Potter, Michael 35:W 4:L 23:
19 Tang, Jason 24:D 10:D 13:
20 Potter, Daniel 5:L 32:W 12:
21 Rozenblat, Vanja 1:L 30:W 14:
22 Somaskathan, Aingaran 2:L 35:W 15:
23 Lauder, Natasha 3:L 36:W 18:
24 Papac, Luka 19:D 28:D 17:
25 Drew, Phillip 8:L 34:W 16:
26 Yu, Sally 4:L 31:W 28:
27 Trott, Timothy 9:L 33:W 11:
28 Aghabayev, Farid 10:L 24:D 26:
29 Chow, KeLi 0: 0: 33:
30 Kenmure, Jamie 6:L 21:L 36:
31 Sullivan, Brent 7:L 26:L 34:
32 Wang, Shuyu 14:L 20:L 35:
33 Cameron, James 16:L 27:L 29:
34 Iversen, Matthew 17:L 25:L 31:
35 La, Jimmy 18:L 22:L 32:
36 Balachandran, Shananthan 15:L 23:L 30:
37 Harutyunyan, David 11:- 0: 0:


starter

ursogr8
23-04-2005, 07:07 PM
Late breaking news >> I have arranged for the 1st two round pairings to be e-mailed to me....so I will be able to calculate the competitive index. Will keep checking my e-mail tonight and bring to you asap.

regards
starter

Davidflude
23-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Iwas not in charge of the Internet connection. Gerit was.

I was resposible for getting the second PC to work and getting games entered.

The PC worked. Games were entered and hopefully lots more tomorrow.

Games were transferred to floppy disk as Gerit wanted to send them to the Internet at home.

ursogr8
23-04-2005, 10:28 PM
The OFFICIAL website (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm) is now updated and full details of the VIC Junior OPEN are available there.


starter

klyall
24-04-2005, 08:38 PM
Thanks to Devrim van Dijk who donated a large bag of lollipops to the tea room. :P

Players have been notified of the change of venue to the Box Hill Town Hall for next Sunday's match. Further details will be given to players on Saturday.

Mischa
24-04-2005, 08:45 PM
I had two...a red one and a green one.Little piggy me.
Thanks Davrim!!!!

jenni
24-04-2005, 10:07 PM
Um - any results? Like who is winning, Chris, Zhigen, Dusan, someone else?

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:15 PM
^^
I can do better than jenni.

The competitive index for round 1 was 695.

The smallest differential was on board 16, where a draw was the result.
All other results as per the pairings expectation.


starter

jenni
24-04-2005, 10:19 PM
C'mon - don't tease - tell us what happened today. :(

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:19 PM
^^
I can do better than jenni.

The competitive index for round 1 was 695.

The smallest differential was on board 16, where a draw was the result.
All other results as per the pairings expectation.


starter

In round 2 the index was 386.
Board 3 saw a nice draw by James Morris against Jesse Jaeger; on board 8 Devrim van Dijk was upset by Aylwin Yap.


starter

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:24 PM
C'mon - don't tease - tell us what happened today. :(

jenni

Me? Personally?

I received a lovely sprig of Grevillea Robyn David from India.
Had a nice discusion with Bas van Riel who was down from Ballarat to play in the little publicized MCC ANZAC week-ender.
Then, I went to the football where the SAINTers demolished the TIGERS.

:)
starter

jenni
24-04-2005, 10:26 PM
Sigh - what right do you have to a personal life :cool:

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:26 PM
Oh...you probably meant results. :uhoh:

I have to wait for Kerry, orr David or Gerrit to e-mail to me.

starter

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:34 PM
jenni

I just checked the Box Hill web-site and found that round 1 of the 100 player Championship has the results (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0504fcc/round1.htm) posted.

Now, while you are waiting for the VIC Junior results (this thread) you might be interested in a tipping competition in another place, for round 2. See how well Denvo tipped in round 1, and get the idea from how the competition went on the Autumn Cup thread.


testing the limits, :uhoh:
starter

jenni
24-04-2005, 10:41 PM
jenni

I just checked the Box Hill web-site and found that round 1 of the 100 player Championship has the results (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0504fcc/round1.htm) posted.

Now, while you are waiting for the VIC Junior results (this thread) you might be interested in a tipping competition in another place, for round 2. See how well Denvo tipped in round 1, and get the idea from how the competition went on the Autumn Cup thread.


testing the limits, :uhoh:
starter

I've just a look - talk about not taking risks. :)

Last time I went into a tipping contest with Matt, I won many dollars, which he donated to the ACTJCL.

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:54 PM
Will try to remember some more in a minute


Here are two files...attached

Tried using codes but some obscure problem.


starter


(Ed: Posted below, problem was TAB characters, I think - r/w)

ursogr8
24-04-2005, 10:55 PM
^^

Don't go...I have them......

jenni
24-04-2005, 10:56 PM
Sounds like Zhigen must be on 4 and either Dusan or Jing - nice to see Jing playing again.

Ok so totally wrong - lots of people on 3.5. :) Thank-you starter and Mischa.

Rincewind
24-04-2005, 11:14 PM
No Name Total 1 2 3 4

1. Stojic, Dusan 3.5 21:W 9:W 6:W 5:D
2. Wallis, Christhopher 3 22:W 11:W 5:L 13:W
3. Jager, Jesse 3.5 23:W 10:D 19:W 7:W
4. Lin, Zhigen 3.5 25:W 13:W 7:D 10:W
5. Vijayakumar, Rukman 3.5 26:W 12:W 2:W 1:D
6. Jia, Jing Qu 3 27:W 17:W 1:L 14:W
7. Muthusamy, Reubban 2.5 28:W 14:W 4:D 3:L
8. Van Dijk, Devrim 2.5 30:W 19:L 22:W 17:D
9. Potter, Matthew 2.5 33:+ 1:L 16:W 19:D
10. Morris, James 2.5 16:W 3:D 24:W 4:L
11. Yu, Derek 3 37:W 2:L 21:W 18:W
12. Vijayakumar, Rengan 2 34:W 5:L 25:D 24:D
13. Schön, Eugene 2 29:W 4:L 23:W 2:L
14. Glenton, Alan 2 31:W 7:L 15:W 6:L
15. Papac, Luka 1.5 18:D 20:D 14:L 28:D
16. Trott, Timothy 1 10:L 29:W 9:L 32:L
17. Potter, Michael 2.5 32:W 6:L 26:W 8:D
18. Tang, Jason 2 15:D 24:D 37:W 11:L
19. Yap, Aylwin 2.5 36:W 8:W 3:L 9:D
20. Aghabayev, Farid 1.5 24:L 15:D 27:W 25:L
21. Potter, Daniel 2 1:L 30:W 11:L 27:W
22. Rozenblat, Vanja 1.5 2:L 28:W 8:L 29:D
23. Drew, Phillip 2 3:L 31:W 13:L 37:W
24. Sunder, Vijay 2 20:W 18:D 10:L 12:D
25. Somaskathan, Aingaran 2.5 4:L 32:W 12:D 20:W
26. Lauder, Natasha 2 5:L 34:W 17:L 31:W
27. Yu, Sally 1 6:L 36:W 20:L 21:L
28. Kenmure, Jamie 1.5 7:L 22:L 34:W 15:D
29. Cameron, James 1.5 13:L 16:L 35:W 22:D
30. Wang, Shuyu 1 8:L 21:L 32:L 35:W
31. Iversen, Matthew 1 14:L 23:L 36:W 26:L
32. La, Jimmy 2 17:L 25:L 30:W 16:W
33. Harutyunyan, David 0 9:- : : :
34. Balachandran, Shananthan 1 12:L 26:L 28:L 36:W
35. Chow, KeLi 0 : : 29:L 30:L
36. Sullivan, Brent 0 19:L 27:L 31:L 34:L
37. Lau, Aaron 1 11:L :W 18:L 23:L

Mischa
24-04-2005, 11:17 PM
You are a star rincewind

ursogr8
25-04-2005, 10:37 AM
You are a star rincewind
I have approriately gonged his green light. ;)
starter

Davidflude
25-04-2005, 11:45 AM
Watch the Box Hill Chess club for the draw for round 5.

Also we may be able to put up a file of games. We still have about twenty games to enter. The system of getting the participants to enter games themselves is working well. The only problem was that some games finished close to the time we had to vacate the building. Furthermore we still have to enter some games from rounds 1 to 3.

I shall try and have a legal copy of Shreddder 6 and possibly Crafty 19 up on a fast machine at the club for round 5. (I have bought Shredder 8 and may donate Shredder 6 to the club.) This will provide an additional incentive for players to enter games using Chessbase as they can then let the computer analyse them.

All in all the weekend went well. The kids behaved well. The helpers were driven into the ground. I slept the clock around on Sunday night. Eugene and his mum took me to a wee Chinese/Japanese resteraunt which sold exellent and cheap dumplings. It was good to see several coaches drop in from time to time. One was even seen helping a child who he does not normally coach.

There are points about computers and Chess Clubs that I will post post in a new thread.

Mischa
25-04-2005, 01:49 PM
I only saw three coaches there...Leonid Sandler, David Hacche and Wayne Guy.
David for James, Leonid for Elwood kids, and Wayne for his kids.

BearDrinkingBeer
25-04-2005, 08:05 PM
Morris-Lin 2005 Vic Juniors, as asked for.

My first post! Even though I had to edit this message like 10 times!!!

Because of all the errors, I have to take out all the annotations altogether.

But just to note that White was never past a slight advantage for the whole game despite (26.Qd3 with a decisive advantage), though Black had a slight advantage very since 13...Qe7 (according to Fritz), until he made a mistake with 17...e5, a slight advantage to White, but then just about the move after that the position went back to the area between slight advantage to Black and equal until Black made a mistake with 24...Rf8. Of course 29.Qf4 was a huge blunder. Otherwise the position was still between slight edge for Black and equal (analysis is computer checked, you can't beat that!).

Event: Vic Juniors
Site: ?
Date: 2005.04.24
Round: 4.3
White: Morris, James
Black: Lin, Zhigen
Result: 0-1
ECO: C00
WhiteElo: 1505
BlackElo: 1852
PlyCount: 120
EventDate: 2005.04.24

1. e4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Be7 5. d4 Nf6 6. Nxf6+ Bxf6 7. Nf3 b6 8.
Be3 Bb7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Nc6 11. Qd2 Ne7 12. Rad1 Nf5 13. b4 Qe7 14. g4 Nxe3
15. fxe3 g6 16. c5 Rfd8 17. Qc2 e5 18. c6 Bc8 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. dxe5 Be6 21.
Qc3 Qg5 22. Rd4 h5 23. Rdf4 hxg4 24. Bc4 Rf8 25. Bxe6 fxe6 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27.
Rxf8+ Kxf8 28. Qd4 Kg8 29. Qf4 Qxf4 30. exf4 g5 31. fxg5 Kg7 32. Kg2 Kg6 33.
Kg3 Kxg5 34. b5 Kh5 35. Kf2 Kg5 36. Kg3 Kh5 37. Kf2 Kg6 38. Kg2 Kf5 39. Kg3 Kg5
40. a3 Kh5 41. Kf4 Kh4 42. a4 Kh5 43. Ke3 Kg5 44. Ke4 g3 45. hxg3 Kg4 46. a5
Kxg3 47. a6 Kg4 48. Ke3 Kf5 49. Kf3 Kxe5 50. Kg4 Kd4 51. Kf4 Kc5 52. Ke5 Kxb5
53. Kxe6 Kxc6 54. Ke7 Kb5 55. Kd7 Kxa6 56. Kxc7 b5 57. Kc6 b4 58. Kc7 b3 59.
Kb8 Kb6 60. Ka8 b2 0-1

Mischa
25-04-2005, 10:10 PM
Sorry I said anything at all

ursogr8
26-04-2005, 08:44 AM
Calculation of the COMPETITIVE Index



2005 VICTORIAN Junior OPEN

Rounds 1-4
695, 386, 308, 332


Round 5 pairings available

here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Round%204%201)

starter

eclectic
26-04-2005, 08:28 PM
(transferred/duplicated from "wrong?" thread)



This one is the 2004 Junior Open thread that Starter revisted for some reason known only to him. I put what I thought was a helpful answer to a question and as usual Mr Smarty Pants leaped in with lots of attacking stuff. Next thing we have 2 threads going. Very confusing for some, particularly if you read the beginning without realising it is 2004 comments.



shhhhhhh....

starter!

over here ....

[whispers in ear:] just because "external referencing" (1)
is forbidden does not imply that "internal referencing" (2) is likewise so ...

:whistle:
:hand:


eclectic

(1) and (2) are programming terms i believe ... other than that if you ask what this is all about i will know nothing ... :eh: :confused:

(will delete other post soon ...i'd hate to get like antichrist ...)

[now deleted on 2004 thread]

jenni
26-04-2005, 09:54 PM
Careful Alipasha - it was me being impatient that started this whole wayward journey.

Recherché
26-04-2005, 10:13 PM
hey guys can you go and play on the non chess thread (Mexicans and respect for elders) I have created and leave this to the Victorian juniors?

Well, I've been assuming (and have suggested) that a moderator will come along and split our posts off into a new thread. It seems sensible to keep posting here in the meantime so they'll all be in the one place come moving time.

Edit: Ahh, I see you've done that too. Thank you, Jenni! :)

If you have time, would it be possible to move the last couple of posts (#121 and #123 in this thread) over there too? Once moved, it's probably worth deleting the posts in question from this thread too, both to make sure discussion doesn't flare up here again, and to bring the thread down to a friendlier length. Make sure you leave this post here so people can find the discussion though, and so they know it exists (otherwise Bill's post stands in isolation, uncriticized).

Reference for anyone interested in the discussion:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2381

jenni
26-04-2005, 10:55 PM
Ok I have now split off all the bitching to another thread in non-chess as well.

Any more complaints about spelling or for or against notorious goes there. Any in here will be deleted, not moved.

Let's keep this thread for celebrating a great event and put the rubbish where it belongs.

Recherché
26-04-2005, 11:03 PM
Nice work Jenni, this thread is now positively svelte. :)

I wouldn't say it was rubbish though. Certainly not all of it.

Personally I can't wait for Round 5. There's a stack of interesting games coming up, and they'll have had almost a week to prepare!

ursogr8
27-04-2005, 09:10 AM
Calculation of the COMPETITIVE Index



2005 VICTORIAN Junior OPEN

Rounds 1-5
695, 386, 308, 332, 240


Round 5 pairings available

here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Round%204%201)

starter

ursogr8
30-04-2005, 11:16 PM
^^^
Flash results of crosstable and round 7 pairings posted on UCJ. Full details likely to be on VIC Junior web-site tomorrow.

starter

jenni
30-04-2005, 11:40 PM
^^^
Flash results of crosstable and round 7 pairings posted on UCJ. Full details likely to be on VIC Junior web-site tomorrow.

starter

Thanks Starter - a very interesting comp. I of course have a sentimental leaning towards Dusan, so I hope he hangs on tomorrow.

StakesIsHigh
01-05-2005, 12:40 AM
UCJ? Is that a site? Anyways, can I have the URL of that site? Or even more helpful would be to tell me who I'm playing tomorrow :P.

-Reubban

Bill Gletsos
01-05-2005, 12:44 AM
UCJ? Is that a site? Anyways, can I have the URL of that site? Or even more helpful would be to tell me who I'm playing tomorrow :P.

-Reubban
6 Van Dijk, Devrim 1675 [3.5] : Muthusamy, Reubban 1767 [3.5]

ursogr8
01-05-2005, 07:57 AM
Calculation of the COMPETITIVE Index



2005 VICTORIAN Junior OPEN

Rounds 1-7
695, 386, 308, 332, 240, 317, 276


Round 7 pairings available

here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Round%204%201)

starter

Bas
01-05-2005, 10:50 AM
Go Jing. Go... The whole of Ballarat is behind you... You are doing fine...

jenni
01-05-2005, 12:32 PM
Go Jing. Go... The whole of Ballarat is behind you... You are doing fine...

He is isn't he? As I said earlier on this thread (although where that comment ended up is anyone's guess - I suspect in the locked thread :) ), it is really nice to see him playing at this level again.

Rincewind
01-05-2005, 06:09 PM
Any news yet?

WhiteElephant
01-05-2005, 06:28 PM
Any news yet?

Just came from the Tournament.....Dusan Stojic and Jing Jia =1st with 7/8

I believe Stojic wins on countback. Not sure whether Jing drops to win the U/16s or whether he gets 2nd in U/18s.

James Morris won the U/14 Title.

I am sure someone will post official results soon.

Rincewind
01-05-2005, 06:38 PM
Just came from the Tournament.....Dusan Stojic and Jing Jia =1st with 7/8

I believe Stojic wins on countback. Not sure whether Jing drops to win the U/16s or whether he gets 2nd in U/18s.

James Morris won the U/14 Title.

Congratulations to all competitors.
:clap:

Will this prevent James competing in the u-12's in a fortnight?


I am sure someone will post official results soon.

Don't be so sure. UCJ seems to be the board of choice for ChessVictoria at the moment. ;) (and btw thanks for the update)

jenni
01-05-2005, 06:43 PM
Any news yet?

You are a brave person - I smacked my fingers every time I thought of posting that this weekend. :P

WhiteElephant
01-05-2005, 06:44 PM
Congratulations to all competitors.
:clap:

Will this prevent James competing in the u-12's in a fortnight?

Yes. This means more chance for the kids I am coaching :owned:
Just kidding :)



Don't be so sure. UCJ seems to be the board of choice for ChessVictoria at the moment. ;) (and btw thanks for the update)

No probs.

WhiteElephant
01-05-2005, 06:45 PM
You are a brave person - I smacked my fingers every time I thought of posting that this weekend. :P

Notorious has NO HOPE of finding any errors in my spelling.....

jenni
01-05-2005, 06:45 PM
Just came from the Tournament.....Dusan Stojic and Jing Jia =1st with 7/8

I believe Stojic wins on countback. Not sure whether Jing drops to win the U/16s or whether he gets 2nd in U/18s.

James Morris won the U/14 Title.

I am sure someone will post official results soon.

Congratulations to Dusan, Jing and James and to all who competed.

Looking forward to seeing full results.

Recherché
01-05-2005, 06:53 PM
More complete (and definitive) results would be great, I'm hoping to sneak them in to tonight's issue of CV News...


Will this prevent James competing in the u-12's in a fortnight?
I shouldn't think so, unless James himself decides not to play for whatever reason.


Don't be so sure. UCJ seems to be the board of choice for ChessVictoria at the moment. ;) (and btw thanks for the update)
Starter isn't a Chess Victoria representative, and has never implied that he was.

Rincewind
01-05-2005, 06:59 PM
Starter isn't a Chess Victoria representative, and has never implied that he was.

No, and hence the ;) but I promise I will try to keep my toes out of ChessVic politics. It's a minefield.

WhiteElephant
01-05-2005, 07:00 PM
I shouldn't think so, unless James himself decides not to play for whatever reason.

Heard Gerrit Hartland telling James he wasn't eligible to play.


Starter isn't a Chess Victoria representative, and has never implied that he was.

Do any CV representatives post here?

Recherché
01-05-2005, 07:25 PM
Heard Gerrit Hartland telling James he wasn't eligible to play.
Oh, OK. My prior understanding was that results in the Under 18s didn't effect eligibility for the Under 12 tournament, but that was just based on something I heard someone say the other week.


Do any CV representatives post here?
None that I'm aware of, unless you count me. But I'm only representative when I'm discussing CV News (I'm the editor); I have no other role within CV.


No, and hence the ;)
Hmm. Odd thing to write, then. :/

jenni
01-05-2005, 07:29 PM
Starter isn't a Chess Victoria representative, and has never implied that he was.

According to the web page Starter is a "non Committee office Bearer". Not sure how you translate that, but I suppose it could be a "representative" if you added a ;) to the statement....

Bill Gletsos
01-05-2005, 07:36 PM
Heard Gerrit Hartland telling James he wasn't eligible to play.According to the published rules to be the U12 Vic Champion you need to be born in 1993 or later. James was born in 1994. However having won the U14 title his is not eligible to play in the U12 event.

Do any CV representatives post here?Not that I am aware of.

eclectic
01-05-2005, 07:36 PM
to be fair in the under age rating lists produced by the acf we will often have "prodigies" ;) figuring in the more senior readouts.

if someone who is under 10 happens to be topping the under 12 14 16 18 lists that doesn't stop them topping the under 10 list does it?

if james is eligible by age to play in the u12's then he should be able to if he so wishes

but then he might decide he needs a well deserved rest

;)

eclectic

eclectic
01-05-2005, 07:42 PM
According to the web page Starter is a "non Committee office Bearer". Not sure how you translate that, but I suppose it could be a "representative" if you added a ;) to the statement....

would the term "star chamber" (henry vii) or "privy council" (perhaps derived from the former or maybe independent of it) aptly describe the modus operandi of chess victoria ?

;) ;) ;)

eclectic

eclectic
01-05-2005, 07:47 PM
According to the published rules to be the U12 Vic Champion you need to be born in 1993 or later. James was born in 1994. However having won the U14 title his is not eligible to play in the U12 event.
Not that I am aware of.

but if the fixtures had been reversed and he had won the u12's first he would have been allowed to compete in the u14/u16/u18's ?

eclectic

jenni
01-05-2005, 08:24 PM
According to the published rules to be the U12 Vic Champion you need to be born in 1993 or later. James was born in 1994. However having won the U14 title his is not eligible to play in the U12 event.
Not that I am aware of.

I guess there are 2 schools of thought in these things

- spread the happiness around

- get kids to play max amount of chess

If all the titles were awarded out of the one comp, or the divisions were held at the same time, then normally a child would not win both titles, so the logic behind excluding a child from the under 12 is easy to see (and obeys the spread the happiness rule).

However there is nothing wrong with allowing kids to play multiple tournaments.

The ACT has run separate divisions since 1999 I think - as in separate U8, U10 etc goign up to under 14. We did try an under 16, and it was well attended by the 14+ kids in the first year, but not after that, so Libby has gone back to a combined Under 14, Under 16. On top of that a separate ACT Juniors is held with only the under 18 title on offer.

Theoretically a child could win every title from under 8 up. We actively encourage juniors to play every comp they can. The various comps are spread from July through to September. It is interesting that although kids are allowed to win multiple tournaments (and thus titles) it rarely happens.

antichrist
01-05-2005, 08:32 PM
According to the published rules to be the U12 Vic Champion you need to be born in 1993 or later. James was born in 1994. However having won the U14 title his is not eligible to play in the U12 event.
Not that I am aware of.

These are age group divisions not grades. The law is an ass.

ursogr8
01-05-2005, 08:37 PM
but if the fixtures had been reversed and he had won the u12's first he would have been allowed to compete in the u14/u16/u18's ?

eclectic

hi 'e'

I have some results from the days activities. ;) :cool: :uhoh:


Been at the football mate, and the SAINTers ran all over Collingwood.


Oops...............wrong thread.


Try this link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/05_vic_junior.htm) .


Now, I guess we just need to know which one he entered for.


starter

ursogr8
01-05-2005, 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by jenni
According to the web page Starter is a "non Committee office Bearer". Not sure how you translate that, but I suppose it could be a "representative" if you added a ;) to the statement....

would the term "star chamber" (henry vii) or "privy council" (perhaps derived from the former or maybe independent of it) aptly describe the modus operandi of chess victoria ?

;) ;) ;)

eclectic

e


I was a representative of the provisionally affiliated Dark Horse Club at the 2004 AGM of Chess VICTORIA.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-05-2005, 08:51 PM
but if the fixtures had been reversed and he had won the u12's first he would have been allowed to compete in the u14/u16/u18's ?I dont believe so. Then again thats just how I read the tournament rules on the official website.

Bill Gletsos
01-05-2005, 08:54 PM
I guess there are 2 schools of thought in these things

- spread the happiness around

- get kids to play max amount of chess

If all the titles were awarded out of the one comp, or the divisions were held at the same time, then normally a child would not win both titles, so the logic behind excluding a child from the under 12 is easy to see (and obeys the spread the happiness rule).

However there is nothing wrong with allowing kids to play multiple tournaments.I agree. However I'm just giving my interpretation of the tournament rules on the offficial site at http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/vic_junior_rules.htm

klyall
01-05-2005, 09:01 PM
Thank you to all the volunteers who helped make this such a successful tournament. :D

First, enormous thanks to Gerrit Hartland, who did a fantastic job organising the tournament. Thanks to Chris Potter, who did a great job as deputy arbiter. Thanks also to Garry W. who came late today to help organise the allocation of prizes.

Much appreciation to Anna, Yoshiko, Erica and Rowena who helped run the tea room.

In the IT area, David Flude did a wonderful job setting up the club's new computer and supervising the entry of games. Thanks also to Shaun, Trevor Stanning and the Potter boys.

In addition, Jesse, Vanja, Aingarin, Eugene, Jason, Erica, Liz, Derek, Sally, Chris, Geoff Saw, David Flude and Gerry who helped with the moving of chess equipment and other paraphenalia.

Last but not least, thank you to all the participants who entered their games on to Chess Base. The games will be available as soon as possible on the Victorian Junior Open page. :clap:

Hope I haven't missed any one out.

Recherché
01-05-2005, 09:15 PM
if someone who is under 10 happens to be topping the under 12 14 16 18 lists that doesn't stop them topping the under 10 list does it?
Not the list, no, but players are only eligible to hold one title. I had forgotten about this.


if james is eligible by age to play in the u12's then he should be able to if he so wishes

but then he might decide he needs a well deserved rest
Perhaps players in this situation could be allowed to participate, but without being able to win the title if they win the tournament - like overseas players playing in the Australian Championship, for instance.


but if the fixtures had been reversed and he had won the u12's first he would have been allowed to compete in the u14/u16/u18's?
The tournaments were probably held in the order they were in order to prevent that scenario occurring.


According to the web page Starter is a "non Committee office Bearer". Not sure how you translate that, but I suppose it could be a "representative" if you added a ;) to the statement....
Heh. As Auditor I presume he'd be more independant of the CV committee than other office bearers might be.

Recherché
01-05-2005, 09:21 PM
Hope I haven't missed any one out.

You left out Kerry Lyall. ;)

I'm sure everyone involved with the Vic Juniors this year is very grateful for all the work you put in too. :)

ursogr8
01-05-2005, 09:45 PM
Thank you to all the volunteers who helped make this such a successful tournament. :D

First, enormous thanks to Gerrit Hartland, who did a fantastic job organising the tournament. Thanks to Chris Potter, who did a great job as deputy arbiter. Thanks also to Garry W. who came late today to help organise the allocation of prizes.

Much appreciation to Anna, Yoshiko, Erica and Rowena who helped run the tea room.

In the IT area, David Flude did a wonderful job setting up the club's new computer and supervising the entry of games. Thanks also to Shaun, Trevor Stanning and the Potter boys.

In addition, Jesse, Vanja, Aingarin, Eugene, Jason, Erica, Liz, Derek, Sally, Chris, Geoff Saw, David Flude and Gerry who helped with the moving of chess equipment and other paraphenalia.

Last but not least, thank you to all the participants who entered their games on to Chess Base. The games will be available as soon as possible on the Victorian Junior Open page. :clap:

Hope I haven't missed any one out.

Well reported kerry. And well done for all your help.
Only 180 posts to go and then ...
regards
starter

klyall
01-05-2005, 10:49 PM
Humble apologies. :doh:

I forgot to mention Yoshiko in helping in the tea room. Sorry Yoshiko, your assistance and support was greatly appreciated.

Recherché
01-05-2005, 11:36 PM
Humble apologies. :doh:

I forgot to mention Yoshiko in helping in the tea room. Sorry Yoshiko, your assistance and support was greatly appreciated.

Hmm. Yoshiko is mentioned in your original post, and there's no sign of it having been edited. Perhaps she(?) wasn't forgotten after all. :)

Recherché
02-05-2005, 12:03 AM
More complete (and definitive) results would be great, I'm hoping to sneak them in to tonight's issue of CV News...

Ahh well, it wasn't to be. Still, that means I have two weeks to get together a full account of the tourney.

Anyone who would like to submit an account of the tournament for publication is most welcome to do so. (CVnews@chessvictoria.com)

Rincewind
02-05-2005, 08:21 AM
Heh. As Auditor I presume he'd be more independant of the CV committee than other office bearers might be.

Relax Rob. My comment was nothing more than a good-natured dig-in-the-ribs for Trev. Especially in light of Reubban's comment above.

(Checks number of toes and exeunt)

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 08:32 AM
Hmm. Yoshiko is mentioned in your original post, and there's no sign of it having been edited. Perhaps she(?) wasn't forgotten after all. :)

:hmm:
Part of Kerry's strategy to get Coffee Lounge entry? ;)

starter

Libby
02-05-2005, 09:44 AM
Theoretically a child could win every title from under 8 up. We actively encourage juniors to play every comp they can. The various comps are spread from July through to September. It is interesting that although kids are allowed to win multiple tournaments (and thus titles) it rarely happens.

Interestingly, our U12 tournament was won last year by a player who wasn't able to win a place (1st-5th) in the U10s - such is the depth of a closely matched group of players in that 9-12 age bracket in Canberra at the moment it's hard to pick a winner.

jenni
02-05-2005, 10:05 AM
Hmm. Yoshiko is mentioned in your original post, and there's no sign of it having been edited. Perhaps she(?) wasn't forgotten after all. :)

Kerry is showing typical signs of volunteer exhaustion.... At the end of two very long weekends you start worrying about all the things you haven't done....

Libby
02-05-2005, 10:09 AM
The ACT has run separate divisions since 1999 I think - as in separate U8, U10 etc goign up to under 14. We did try an under 16, and it was well attended by the 14+ kids in the first year, but not after that, so Libby has gone back to a combined Under 14, Under 16. On top of that a separate ACT Juniors is held with only the under 18 title on offer.


Not entirely true. We are running (or intend to run) an U16 and U14 tournament, just on the same weekend. So the possibility of winning both is taken away in this case.

The problem last year was not numbers (28 played) but only 3 Under 16 players turned up and not one of (I think) the top 5 ACT Under 16 players participated. So it was, in the end, another U14 event.

After scrolling through various arguments from those players who did not compete, I initially decided to scrap the U16 as an event unsupported by it's target group. However, a couple of parents (not players) moped at that possibility so it was reinstated. My decision was not to give up another weekend myself to run it so it will run simultaneously with the U14. I hope that will give us a smaller, stronger U16, possibly run as a round-robin and therefore an elite event the winner will have been happy to give up a weekend for, and proud to win. However, it will require a minimum of 6, Under 16 players to enter or it will not run at all. My problem last year was that we could have run an absolutely top-quality U16 event and we just didn't have the support of that age group.

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 10:24 AM
Calculation of the COMPETITIVE Index



2005 VICTORIAN Junior OPEN

Rounds 1-8
695, 386, 308, 332, 240, 317, 276, 239


Crosstable for all results now available.



starter

Rincewind
02-05-2005, 10:30 AM
Crosstable for all results now available.

No link?

http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm

I note that Christopher's name was corrected in the crosstable and results for rounds 5-8. I guess rounds 1-4 were put in the basket of too hardness.

Any idea of when and where games will be available?

jenni
02-05-2005, 10:32 AM
My problem last year was that we could have run an absolutely top-quality U16 event and we just didn't have the support of that age group.

Sigh - I know. Gareth should have played, but he really didn't want to - I think the timing was bad and he was in the middle of his chess crisis....

I kind of think you are flogging a dead horse ... or is it a political exercise to show the parents that no under 16's want to play?

Rincewind
02-05-2005, 10:49 AM
Crosstable for all results now available.

The crosstable makes more sense once you realise it does not include round 8. Took a few minutes for me but it is still AM.

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 10:50 AM
No link?

See comment on other thread.




I note that Christopher's name was corrected in the crosstable and results for rounds 5-8. I guess rounds 1-4 were put in the basket of too hardness.

Hmm. :hmm: A curiosity indeed. Perhaps a SP feature. One would think the change was made to the name in the players list menu item, and yet it doesn't appear to carry fwd.
We had a similar oddity on last Friday night.
We had a pairing
Eastbeat (0.5) v (0.5) Ex.Prez
and because of a no-show we subbed Latecomer (on zero points). But SP insisted on showing the pairing as
Latecomer (0.5) v (0.5) Ex.Prez



Any idea of when and where games will be available?

I understand they were all being typed in by players.
So, must just be a storage then link task to complete.

starter

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 10:54 AM
The crosstable makes more sense once you realise it does not include round 8. Took a few minutes for me but it is still AM.

Which is why the text on the competitive thread changed a little...I had noticed the same. ;)
This part was not an ambush.

starter

Bill Gletsos
02-05-2005, 11:04 AM
Hmm. :hmm: A curiosity indeed. Perhaps a SP feature. One would think the change was made to the name in the players list menu item, and yet it doesn't appear to carry fwd.The answer is obvious. Since the spelling was corrected after round 4 all generated SP reports after round 4 show the change. However no one apparently bothered to recreate the result reports for rounds 1-4 and upload them to the website. Hence they continue to show the incorrect spelling.

Libby
02-05-2005, 11:35 AM
Sigh - I know. Gareth should have played, but he really didn't want to - I think the timing was bad and he was in the middle of his chess crisis....

I kind of think you are flogging a dead horse ... or is it a political exercise to show the parents that no under 16's want to play?

Yep to both. I had no desire to run the event but was being prodded by the usual suspects not to scrap it altogether.

So I tossed the ball back into that court - ie the player's court. If they want to play, we'll run it. If not, no skin (or time) off my nose - I'll stick with the U14s.

I've decided there's no point suffering "organiser angst" over people not showing up.

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 11:36 AM
^^
Yes...you are correct Bill, I would believe. :doh:

I think I was swayed by the other perplexation I listed in post previous. Why would it not show Latecomer (0) instead of Latecomer (0.5)?

starter

Rincewind
02-05-2005, 11:38 AM
The answer is obvious. Since the spelling was corrected after round 4 all generated SP reports after round 4 show the change. However no one apparently bothered to recreate the result reports for rounds 1-4 and upload them to the website. Hence they continue to show the incorrect spelling.

That was my thinking too. The lack of round 8 in the crosstable is harder to explain though. Must have been viewing the Round 7 results when producing the crosstable. :confused:

Davidflude
02-05-2005, 11:50 AM
I shall put a new thread in the IT section on setting up a club computer.

Meanwhile I have about 10-20 games to enter to complete the Vic Junior.

The juniors were great in entering games at the Victorian Junior. However I believe that you need two computers at least for entereing games. Also we had to pack up within minutes of the last game being completed which prevented entry of all games.

One suggestion is to get a binder and a four hole punch and put the original scores into the binder in order as they are played. This makes it much easier to
enter games and keep track of scoresheets.

Another suggestion is to manually set up games on the database without moves
as soon as the round starts.

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 12:31 PM
That was my thinking too. The lack of round 8 in the crosstable is harder to explain though. Must have been viewing the Round 7 results when producing the crosstable. :confused:

Baz

I am guessing the web-site was w.i.p. at the time I drew attention to the round 8 results being available. The weibe_stream had uploaded the round 8, but not the cross-table.
At the moment, the SP files are with Gerrit, and he exports and mails to kevlduv.

A few lags in the process.

T

Bill Gletsos
02-05-2005, 12:32 PM
^^
Yes...you are correct Bill, I would believe. :doh:

I think I was swayed by the other perplexation I listed in post previous. Why would it not show Latecomer (0) instead of Latecomer (0.5)?Are you sure no one gave Latecomer a 0.5 bonus.

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 12:48 PM
^^
We opened and examined his player screen and his 'large card screen' and could not see any 0.5.

But I guess could be other shadows around; I will look more closely next chance I get.

jenni
02-05-2005, 12:49 PM
Another suggestion is to manually set up games on the database without moves
as soon as the round starts.

Doesn't Phil O'Connor have a program to do this? I thought he did something like use the draw as generated by SP to set up stubs on the database. The data entry people just had to click on these as the games came in and enter moves. We used something like that for the Aus Juniors in Canberra in 2001 and it was great, as you had a standard naming convention and names were spelled correctly etc. I thought it came from Phil, but could be wrong.

kveldulv
02-05-2005, 01:52 PM
Crosstable fixed - yes, I must have been looking at R7 when I exported... sorry!

Rd's 1..4 re-uploaded to fix spelling mistake.

I have scripts to generate PGN from Swiss Perfect pairings, but as I couldn't attend nor was I online for most of the weekend, I couldn't do these in real time.

I will be collating and uploading some games sometime during the week.

Shaun

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 02:25 PM
^^
Aha
Looks like a lurker has come out of the cold of the side-lines. ;)

tks Shaun


Obviously great interest in your work.

starter

kveldulv
03-05-2005, 06:10 PM
First batch of games now up. See:

http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm

Shaun

ursogr8
03-05-2005, 10:02 PM
^^
We opened and examined his player screen and his 'large card screen' and could not see any 0.5.

But I guess could be other shadows around; I will look more closely next chance I get.

Bill

I have had a second, closer look at this and the effluxion of time seems to have solved it.
That is, everything is now ridgey-didge.

regards
starter

ursogr8
03-05-2005, 10:18 PM
I agree. However I'm just giving my interpretation of the tournament rules on the offficial site at http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/vic_junior_rules.htm

Bill
The circumstances have now been brought to the Arbiter's attention.
Thanks for your help.

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2005, 11:19 PM
Bill

I have had a second, closer look at this and the effluxion of time seems to have solved it.
That is, everything is now ridgey-didge.

regards
starterSo had someone allocated a bonus or is there some other explanation.

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2005, 11:22 PM
Bill
The circumstances have now been brought to the Arbiter's attention.
Thanks for your help.

starterWhy would that be necessary. I dont believe I was questioning the Arbiters comments, just trying to explain to others why the arbiter had said what he had regarding why James could not play in the U12's.

Davidflude
04-05-2005, 12:40 AM
Shaun has sent me a PGN file generated from Swiss Perfect using Phil's script. I
wish that I had it during the weekend. I merged his file and my file and then set it up on the full version of Chessbase on my machine.

If anyone has to manually correct a PGN database of a tournament then I suggest the following procedure using the full version of Chessbase.

1) First correct all the various names of the tournament on the PGN file. This is easy using the full version of Chessbase.

2) Next correct the various spellings of names. Again this is easy in chessbase.

3) Next sort the database.

4) Then correct all the round number and board number errors and input the remaining games.

Hopefully I shall finish entering games by the weekend.

ursogr8
04-05-2005, 07:42 AM
So had someone allocated a bonus or is there some other explanation.
We have no explanation.
And we are unable to replicate the round 2 pairings screen with the fault appearing.

I have checked all relevant bonus and acceleration screens.....nothing to explain the 0.5 appearing. (Apart from the description in post #129).

starter

ursogr8
04-05-2005, 07:43 AM
Why would that be necessary. I dont believe I was questioning the Arbiters comments, just trying to explain to others why the arbiter had said what he had regarding why James could not play in the U12's.

I think I have crossed your wire Bill. I was referring to the U14 Girls countback.
Apology for quoting the inappropriate post.

starter

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2005, 12:11 PM
I think I have crossed your wire Bill. I was referring to the U14 Girls countback.
Apology for quoting the inappropriate post.

starterOk, now it makes sense.

LEARNER
07-05-2005, 06:43 PM
I think Sally Yu should have won the U14 girls title since Keli Chow got a half-point bye. :eh:

LEARNER
08-05-2005, 11:50 AM
Dont forget the Victorian under twelves are on this weekend.

P.S Is James Morris playing?

Bas
09-05-2005, 11:16 AM
Jing got a nice little report in the local (Ballarat) newspaper (attached, does it work?)

Rincewind
09-05-2005, 01:35 PM
Nice. I notice a slight inaccuracy in the article though. Some of the competitors were younger than 12.

Libby
09-05-2005, 01:43 PM
Nice. I notice a slight inaccuracy in the article though. Some of the competitors were younger than 12.

When dealing with the media, i would count myself very lucky to find a "slight" inaccuracy. Some of them are whoppers!

eclectic
09-05-2005, 02:49 PM
i wonder how long it is before a certain mr stojic ? asks for the caption under the photo to be corrected

i would assume the winner of the highest (u18) division is the junior state champion

[i'm having deja vu about certain other "embellished" threads :whistle:]

eclectic

ursogr8
09-05-2005, 03:18 PM
i wonder how long it is before a certain mr stojic ? asks for the caption under the photo to be corrected

i would assume the winner of the highest (u18) division is the junior state champion

[i'm having deja vu about certain other "embellished" threads :whistle:]

eclectic

hi 'e'
And which one is that?
> Getting the spelling of his first name correct?
>> Countback or counted out
>>> I got the trophy...what have you got.
starter

:uhoh:

eclectic
09-05-2005, 03:24 PM
hi 'e'
And which one is that?
> Getting the spelling of his first name correct?
>> Countback or counted out
>>> I got the trophy...what have you got.
starter

:uhoh:

was anyone on a winner in that thread?

i may have to go back and check mate

:hmm:

eclectic

ursogr8
09-05-2005, 03:36 PM
Actually three threads
> = NOTORIOUS et al
>> = K Chow _ S Yu
>>> = GURU marketing puff

Happy reading friend

eclectic
09-05-2005, 04:09 PM
Actually three threads
> = NOTORIOUS et al
>> = K Chow _ S Yu
>>> = GURU marketing puff

Happy reading friend

very sorry about the thread entanglement starter
but if off my medication chesschat can be one big blur
:whistle:

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 01:15 AM
Anyone with any results from the U12, U10 and U8's.

Rincewind
15-05-2005, 02:04 AM
Anyone with any results from the U12, U10 and U8's.

Here we go again!

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 02:23 AM
Here we go again! :lol: ;)

antichrist
15-05-2005, 05:14 AM
When dealing with the media, i would count myself very lucky to find a "slight" inaccuracy. Some of them are whoppers!

I was in a public election years ago, the bit.h of a reporter forgot to press the record button for the interview, then went on to misquote and slander me in her article.

ursogr8
15-05-2005, 08:11 AM
Anyone with any results from the U12, U10 and U8's.

The number of entries as at 9pm Friday night was 76 and the Arbiter was quickly re-assessing his supply of No-Doze tablets, and the Canteen organisers walked over to the Shopping Centre to add to rasberry cordial and Chupa Chop stocks.



Oh, and if it is cross-tables and that sort of info you are after :uhoh: ......enter our cyber-pass (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Cross%20Table%202) to get the status to the end of round 4 (14/5/5).

For round 5, there will be at least one kid happy with the eventual outcome on board 38.

starter

ps Disclaimer...text above not checked for spelling mistakes in player names. ;)

ursogr8
15-05-2005, 11:22 AM
Round 5 underway right on time.
Great bunch of new helpers have appeared to support this tournament. :clap: :clap:

Can you believe this..........all entrants were registered a day before the event. :eek:
Puts some of our recalcitrant senior citizens to shame.
The next generation of mexican chess players will enter tournaments early....and this is a big help.

Fludey has done particularly well. :clap:

I am off to the football. Go Bombers.


starter

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 12:16 PM
The number of entries as at 9pm Friday night was 76 and the Arbiter was quickly re-assessing his supply of No-Doze tablets, and the Canteen organisers walked over to the Shopping Centre to add to rasberry cordial and Chupa Chop stocks.



Oh, and if it is cross-tables and that sort of info you are after :uhoh: ......enter our cyber-pass (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Cross%20Table%202) to get the status to the end of round 4 (14/5/5).

For round 5, there will be at least one kid happy with the eventual outcome on board 38.

starter

ps Disclaimer...text above not checked for spelling mistakes in player names. ;) Thanks for that starter. I did actually check the relevant website but at the time of my post no results had been published.

Recherché
15-05-2005, 06:25 PM
Anybody have Sunday results? Title winners?

Rincewind
15-05-2005, 06:35 PM
Anybody have Sunday results? Title winners?

I'm not saying anything (since I don't know) but hopefully people will bemaking their way home from the presentations about now and someone will risk an unofficial posting of title winners.

klyall
16-05-2005, 07:01 AM
Too tired to post last night! The following is from memory. (Official results should be on the website shortly.) Please excuse poor spelling.

Under 12's - First - Udit Thakur - on countback :clap:
Second - Eugene Schon
Third - Sam Dalton

Under 10's - Sensational win by the 8 year old Yi Liu
Second - Thomas Feng
Third - Nicholas Liu (on countback)
Lawrence Matheson a very close fourth

Many thanks to Mr Sandler - arbiter for the tournament. Special thanks to Gerrit Hartland - tournament organiser for all his hard work. David Flude has being doing a wonderful job entering the top ten games which should be
available shortly. Thanks also to Tom for helping with distribution of scoresheets and setting up clocks.

I would also like to thank Qing, Bronwyn, Joanie, Catherine and Linda for their assistance in the tea - room.

klyall
16-05-2005, 07:11 AM
Must still be tired. Left the following out of the previous post.

Under 12 Girls - Shuyu Wang - won the money but not the title because she already has won the Under 18 title. :clap: Alison Zhu therefore took the Under 12 girls title. :clap:

Under 10 Girls - Elissa Xu

Under 8 - First - Andrew Gurevich
Second - Michael Chen

Recherché
16-05-2005, 03:53 PM
Thanks Kerry!

ursogr8
16-05-2005, 04:31 PM
(End of tourney) Cross table for the U12's and others now available at the

link displayed here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_results.htm#Cross%20Table%202)

starter

ps...and I agree...thanks to Kerry Lyall for her efforts at both Junior events too.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 06:36 PM
If you get then to the CV Ratings Officer they can be included in the June ratings.

Davidflude
16-05-2005, 09:47 PM
The under 12 weekend was an absolute ripper. Lots of well behaved keen children and parents. My main task was entering games. With the fast time control I only managed to capture about 30 games. The children were great at entering games.

A few points -

The children like to enter their games. Ideally (we only found this during the tournament) the computer(s) to enter games on should be in the analysis room not near the computer used to enter results or carry out pairings. This way it enables children to gather round the computer and see the games.

Enter games using Chessbase Light with the rule that games should only be analysed using a computer program once they are entered.

There are lots of problems with reading scoresheets. This slows thing down.


It is now possible to buy second hand computers for very little money. However these should not contain any software to be legal. I have one query
which I shall mention here and on the computer thread (answers on the computer thread please.) Will Chessbase Light run under the Windows Interface that can be attached to linux. If so then club data entry computers can easily and cheaply set up.

The clean up at the end was very tiring. At the finish Gerrit and I had to put
everything away and reaarange the furniture. We finished about 8.15PM.

I had lunch at the Dumpling King. (It was brilliant). Any out of towners or Interstate players who attend the Victorian Open should note that Box Hill is rapidly turning into an upmarket Chinatown. The food should be sampled.

ursogr8
17-05-2005, 08:16 AM
The standings of tourney #2 can be viewed through
this link to NEWS (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_news.htm)

A really close win by Udit Thakur over Eugene Schon judging by the tie-break score.
The performance of Yi Liu as U8 looks remarkable too.

Best observation for me, from the tourney, was the excited interest from a huge number of new parents who attended.


starter

Rincewind
17-05-2005, 08:25 AM
A really close win by Udit Thakur over Eugene Schon judging by the tie-break score.
The performance of Yi Liu as U8 looks remarkable too.

Congratulations to all competitors.

Interesting point of note is the link between your two sentences. I believe Yi took 1/2 a point from Eugene in the last round of day one. Great effort from Eugene to haul back Samuel and Devraj and 'almost' catch Udit. Round 6 board 1 game would have been critical.

I await Fludey's PGN efforts with interest.

ursogr8
20-05-2005, 08:20 PM
The standings of tourney #2 can be viewed through
this link to NEWS (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_news.htm)

A really close win by Udit Thakur over Eugene Schon judging by the tie-break score.
The performance of Yi Liu as U8 looks remarkable too.

Best observation for me, from the tourney, was the excited interest from a huge number of new parents who attended.


starter

A limited number of pics of the event now available through this link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/vicchess/2005_vic_junior_news.htm)


starter

Bill Gletsos
21-05-2005, 12:19 AM
I notice that the Girls U14 Champion has changed and it now correctly shows Sally Yu as the winner on countback.

ursogr8
21-05-2005, 10:39 PM
I notice that the Girls U14 Champion has changed and it now correctly shows Sally Yu as the winner on countback.

Bill

Correct.
Resulted from a formal review by the appointed person.

This episode and similar difficulties at the #2 tourney has inclined us to consider delaying the awarding of some prizes (in particular where research is required) for a week beyond the last day of play (intended for 2006).

regards
starter

Mischa
25-05-2005, 07:37 PM
Hey Just being a proud mum but...
James won best game in the tournament for his game against Reubben...the last game of the tournament and deciding game for the under 14 title

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 08:04 PM
Hey Just being a proud mum but...
James won best game in the tournament for his game against Reubben...the last game of the tournament and deciding game for the under 14 title

hi M

Yes...agreed 100%

I was just highlighting that we have only run these tournies twice and there is still some learning curve on our part.


regards
T

Mischa
25-05-2005, 08:05 PM
I thought you did a great job.....

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 08:16 PM
I thought you did a great job.....


Fludey gives me all the credit...even when I am not there. :rolleyes:

The real dynamo is Club Captain, Gerrit Hartland; life member of CV and the ACF. :clap: :clap:


starter

Mischa
25-05-2005, 08:17 PM
Yeah I thought about that after I posted.....
Kerry did a great job too.