PDA

View Full Version : Top 20 Ratings by State



rob
21-02-2005, 03:29 PM
As their has been some interest in seeing the top 20 active players ratings by state I have attached an excel file.

This file provides each states top 20 in a separate worksheet for Dec 2004 rated players with a !! or ! symbol. In the worksheet 'symbols' I have given the total number of players by symbol (for the five types of symbols) and state.

ursogr8
21-02-2005, 05:10 PM
As their has been some interest in seeing the top 20 active players ratings by state I have attached an excel file.

This file provides each states top 20 in a separate worksheet for Dec 2004 rated players with a !! or ! symbol. In the worksheet 'symbols' I have given the total number of players by symbol (for the five types of symbols) and state.

Rob

That is a lovely set of numbers, to paraphrase Paul Keating.

I could not resist adding up column D in each sheet of your attachment. It certainly made me gasp and reach for the conclusion generator. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


starter

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2005, 11:59 PM
The TCA website has a sort function for the state rating list - go here (http://members.trump.net.au/taschess/ratetbl.htm) and click on "rating" to see the sad news that I am only #3 at the moment. :(

rob
22-02-2005, 04:11 PM
For info I have attached another file, this one contains the counts and % of all active players (!! or !) by state and rating groups (1900+, 1600-1899, 1300-1599, U1300).

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 05:32 PM
Hello Rob,

Interesting post number one. Goes to show that the top players in both ACT and TAS would not even break into the top 20 in N.S.W or Victoria, based on rating.

Cheers FG7

shaun
22-02-2005, 08:08 PM
Hello Rob,

Interesting post number one. Goes to show that the top players in both ACT and TAS would not even break into the top 20 in N.S.W or Victoria, based on rating.

Cheers FG7

Oh, I don't know about that. If the top ACT or Tas players moved to Sydney or Melbourne, worked really hard on their chess, and played lots of games against the leading players from those cities who knows what might happen ....

Denis_Jessop
22-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Oh, I don't know about that. If the top ACT or Tas players moved to Sydney or Melbourne, worked really hard on their chess, and played lots of games against the leading players from those cities who knows what might happen ....


Yes indeed. Take the case of Vlad Smirnov (a 2000+ player) who moved from Canberra to Sydney two or three years ago and increased his rating by something like 90 points in 5 inter-club games. Or Gunars Lamberts (a 1200 player,now unfortunately too incapacitated to play chess) who raised his rating by a similar amount by playing a few weekenders outside the ACT. Some evidence for the fact that Canberra players generally are under-rated :rolleyes: :whistle:

Denis Jessop

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 10:36 PM
Hello,

Oh, I don't know about that. If the top ACT or Tas players moved to Sydney or Melbourne, worked really hard on their chess, and played lots of games against the leading players from those cities who knows what might happen ....

Yep look I agree completely, but I did qualify my statement by suggesting it was based on rating not potential.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 10:49 PM
Hello,

I would love to know how Tim Anderson(Vic), once represented (Tas) in Oz Champs got his rating to 2173. In my estimates if he played a 6 game match against somebody from MCC like Ascaro Pecori or Thai Ly he would probably lose about 4 1/2- 1 1/2. Just my opinion from watching him play over the years.

Cheers FG7

P.S Just for the record would you regard Jovanovic(ACT) as being a stronger player then Bliznyuk(ACT)?

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 06:48 AM
Hello,

I would love to know how Tim Anderson(Vic), once represented (Tas) in Oz Champs got his rating to 2173. In my estimates if he played a 6 game match against somebody from MCC like Ascaro Pecori or Thai Ly he would probably lose about 4 1/2- 1 1/2. Just my opinion from watching him play over the years.

Cheers FG7



hi fg7

Both the opponents you mention are regulars at Box Hill.
However, if you visit here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2004/e0404fcc/crosstable.htm) you will find that Tim won the BH Championship in 2004 with a picket fence. (Sans Pecori and Ly on that occasion). Given that BH events have a $500 first prize and $1200 total it surprises me that more of you guys don't challenge our 'under-performers'.

regards
starter

firegoat7
23-02-2005, 08:39 AM
Hi Starter,

Is this the same Tim Anderson who learnt to play at the Mentone Chess club?
If he is how many tourneys did he play at Box Hill? Just curious.

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 11:19 AM
Hi Starter,

Is this the same Tim Anderson who learnt to play at the Mentone Chess club?
If he is how many tourneys did he play at Box Hill? Just curious.

Cheers FG7

fg7

Can't answer that one because I have not been to Mentone. But KB knows his early years well and might be able to answer.

He is a regular at BH over the past 3 years (50% events)

starter

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 02:03 PM
Mr. Anderson's rating is another indicator of just how ridiculous Glicko system is. How many points did he get for that one tournament? Over 100?

I am willing to bet that next time he plays he will lose at least 50 of those points back...

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 02:19 PM
Mr. Anderson's rating is another indicator of just how ridiculous Glicko system is. How many points did he get for that one tournament? Over 100?

I am willing to bet that next time he plays he will lose at least 50 of those points back...

Bill,
I think post #13 is yours, for attention?
starter

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2005, 02:31 PM
Bill,
I think post #13 is yours, for attention?
starterAll I will say is that he scored 9 from 9 in that event for a performance rating over 2420 (this is obvious since if he had only scored 8.5 from 9 by drawing with Nemeth instead of beating him then his performance rating would have been 2420). His rating increasing to 2173 is reasonable.

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 02:48 PM
His rating increasing to 2173 is reasonable.

No, it isn't.

And he's going to lose lots of rating points when he plays next.

Why?

Because your stupid Glicko gave him a rating that does not reflect his strength.

Mark my words.

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2005, 02:59 PM
No, it isn't.Your view is totally subjective and certainly not based on his result. An above 2420 performance is no mean feat.

And he's going to lose lots of rating points when he plays next.Perhaps, perhaps not.

Why?

Because your stupid Glicko gave him a rating that does not reflect his strength.Based on his performance rating on could conclude that his strength was greater than 2173 at the time of the event.

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 03:07 PM
Your view is totally subjective and certainly not based on his result. An above 2420 performance is no mean feat.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Based on his performance rating on could conclude that his strength was greater than 2173 at the time of the event.

Ok. I guess time will tell.

Would you agree that Glicko is ridiculous if he does indeed lose lots of rating points when he plays next?

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 03:11 PM
Anyway, at the moment, IMHO, Mr. Anderson is a rather odd entry in the Vic Top20 along with one other player and two more who are little bit suspect as well.

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2005, 03:12 PM
Ok. I guess time will tell.

Would you agree that Glicko is ridiculous if he does indeed lose lots of rating points when he plays next?No, because his current rating is valid based on his current results.
If he cannot perform at the 2173 level next time he plays he deserves to lose points.

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 03:24 PM
And there is no Hacche in top20!! I mean, come on, what kind of top20 is that?! No Hacche!! Ridiculous!! Gletsos, bring back Hacche!

JGB
23-02-2005, 03:43 PM
DoroPhil: Perhaps we just abolish the rating system all together and just let you decide on what peoples ratings are worth? ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2005, 03:47 PM
And there is no Hacche in top20!! I mean, come on, what kind of top20 is that?! No Hacche!! Ridiculous!! Gletsos, bring back Hacche!Perhaps he needs to lift his game. His results last year were on a decline.


Players Historical Rating Performance Normal
Period Rating Perf Score Games
Mar 2004 2182 2136 4.5 11
Jun 2004 2175 2118 4.5 7
Sep 2004 2149 2046 5.0 9
Dec 2004 2117 2078 11.5 23

auriga
23-02-2005, 04:08 PM
And there is no Hacche in top20!! I mean, come on, what kind of top20 is that?! No Hacche!! Ridiculous!! Gletsos, bring back Hacche!

but hacche has brought it upon himself.
he's plays way too many games at 23 (at fast time limits i guess).
if he wants to break the top 20 he going to have to cherry pick
the games he plays ala tim.

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 04:18 PM
I just noticed in some other thread that Gletsos tells everybody what their March2005 ratings will be. Burning question: does Hacche break back into top20? Also, when does Anderson's "!" expire (i.e turns into " ") ?

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 04:21 PM
And just out of curiousity: what would have Mr. Anderson's rating been if he got the same result (9/9; RPp>2420) but with the "!!" ?

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 04:43 PM
And there is no Hacche in top20!! I mean, come on, what kind of top20 is that?! No Hacche!! Ridiculous!! Gletsos, bring back Hacche!

I advertised Mr Hacche as a paid-up entrant for the current 2005 Box Hill Autumn Cup; first prize $500.

But the headliner withdrew just before the tourney started; much to our disappointment.

starter

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 04:48 PM
Anyway, at the moment, IMHO, Mr. Anderson is a rather odd entry in the Vic Top20 along with one other player and two more who are little bit suspect as well.

hi Phil O'Dor

Can you give us your top 20 mate?

starter

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2005, 05:16 PM
I just noticed in some other thread that Gletsos tells everybody what their March2005 ratings will be.
Incorrect. A few posters had used Barry's calculator and wondered how close it was to their March rating. I responded to the accuracy of the calculator.

Burning question: does Hacche break back into top20? Also, when does Anderson's "!" expire (i.e turns into " ") ?
Hacche did not play in the March 2005 period.
As for Anderson the September 2005 period assuming he doesnt play any games before then.

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 05:17 PM
hi Phil O'Dor

Can you give us your top 20 mate?

starter

I would need to know who occupies positions 21-24.

rob
23-02-2005, 06:38 PM
I would need to know who occupies positions 21-24. I have given the Victorians from 21-32 (the rest of the over 2000's)

21 2117 !! 23 Hacche, David J
22 2113 ! 1 Le, Tuan N
23 2094 !! 17 Aghamalyan, Armen
24 2050 !! 10 Skiotis, Pano
25 2049 ! 11 Jensen, Kai
26 2046 !! 21 Pecori, Ascaro
27 2025 !! 13 Bourmistrov, Denis
28 2025 !! 14 Nemeth, Janos
29 2023 !! 23 Lojanica, Milenko
30 2021 ! 0 Stirling, Nathan
31 2007 ! 7 Pekmezovic, Jusuf
32 2006 ! 0 Soloveychik, Sasha

DoroPhil
23-02-2005, 07:52 PM
I have given the Victorians from 21-32 (the rest of the over 2000's)

21 2117 !! 23 Hacche, David J
22 2113 ! 1 Le, Tuan N
23 2094 !! 17 Aghamalyan, Armen
24 2050 !! 10 Skiotis, Pano
25 2049 ! 11 Jensen, Kai
26 2046 !! 21 Pecori, Ascaro
27 2025 !! 13 Bourmistrov, Denis
28 2025 !! 14 Nemeth, Janos
29 2023 !! 23 Lojanica, Milenko
30 2021 ! 0 Stirling, Nathan
31 2007 ! 7 Pekmezovic, Jusuf
32 2006 ! 0 Soloveychik, Sasha

Ok then. For the Vic top20 Anderson and Abdulawahab should be replaced by Hacche and Aghamalyan.

By the way, I thought Vic top20 would be stronger then that anyway. For example, Rutherford played couple of tournaments last year - how come he's not in?

Rincewind
23-02-2005, 08:01 PM
Must just have not lowered his RD to below the "!" threshold.

In the Olympic selection debate I suggested a way of comparing players ratings with varying RDs. I think I termed it the "probable minimum rating" or something. Basically it works like this...

ProbMinRating = Rating - A x RD.

Where A is some number which you select based on the how much you want to bias the effect of the RD. I was suggesting something in the range from 1 to 2. This allows you to have a full top 20 list with out ignoring players above a certain arbitrary RD value.

Unfortunately the numerical value of the RD is not published so the calculation cannot be performed and results compared against your top 20. But it can be done, in theory at least.

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 08:08 PM
Ok then. For the Vic top20 Anderson and Abdulawahab should be replaced by Hacche and Aghamalyan.

By the way, I thought Vic top20 would be stronger then that anyway. For example, Rutherford played couple of tournaments last year - how come he's not in?

Thanks Phil

You would have a lot of supporters with your choices.
It would be nice to speculate the 'what if' we had a benefactor willing to award $200 to each who finish in the top 20 as at Bill's December ratings.

starter

Denis_Jessop
23-02-2005, 09:04 PM
Hello,


Cheers FG7

P.S Just for the record would you regard Jovanovic(ACT) as being a stronger player then Bliznyuk(ACT)?

This is a good example of how silly the ratings debate can get. Why pick on Peter? There are 3 other juniors - Michael Wei, Gareth Oliver and Junta Ikeda who are also rated higher than Andrey plus Ian Rout. Andrey's lowly position is partly caused by his inactivity and consequent loss of form (?playing strength). I think his last tournament was the ACT Championship 2003 in which, as a matter of interest, he scored 7/11 while Peter Jovanovic won on 9/11 with Michael Wei 8/11 and Gareth Oliver 7.5/11 also finishing ahead of Andrey. Ian Rout finished with 7, equal with Andrey. Peter Jovanovic was also the top ACT player in the Doeberl Cup Premier Division in 2004 ahead of Michael Wei (on tie-break), Gareth Oliver and Ian Rout - Andrey Bliznyuk did not play.

So for what your question is worth (and that's not much) the answer is "probably yes".

Denis Jessop

Ian Rout
23-02-2005, 09:17 PM
I think his last tournament was the ACT Championship 2003
Andrey played in the 2004 ANU Open

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2004ANUOpen.htm

(though this was 60m + 10spm and he was perhaps not taking it as seriously as a slower time limit event)

firegoat7
23-02-2005, 11:37 PM
So for what your question is worth (and that's not much) the answer is "probably yes".

Denis Jessop

I asked a question , you gave your answer, whats the problem?

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
23-02-2005, 11:38 PM
Thanks Phil

You would have a lot of supporters with your choices.

starter

I am a supporter Phil, I understand where you are coming from.

Cheers Fg7

rob
24-02-2005, 03:00 PM
Of those in the wa top 20 I'd say that the most likely to drop out are Ted Fletcher (1935!), Frank Silas (1927!), Robert Baumgartner (1870!). Although Ted may drop out due to inactivity rather than playing. Other likely drop-outs due to inactivity are Michael Wilkins (2123!), Boyd McCamon (2103!), and Andrew Kuklinski (1921!).

Glenn Tomek (1920_) from Geraldton may get active enough to be in the top 20 (he was 2nd in the Christmas open), others likely to get into the top 20 (currently 1870+) this year are Gordon Dunlop (1838!!) and John Fedec (1771!!) currently 29th.

If my assumptions are off the mark, you can be sure that Tristan will point it out :owned:

pax
25-02-2005, 02:47 PM
It's interesting to compare three 'states' with similar numbers of registered players (WA, SA and ACT).

WA has the higher average rating in the top 20, and a much higher median (Tao and Chapman compensate in SA for the rest). I expect that the difference in average would be more noticable for (say) the top 50.

Does this reflect a true difference in the ability of the players, or is it due to some extent to an artifact of the rating system?

Underrating problems at the lower end of the ACT system are well documented. Has this had an effect on the top end of the system?

The isolation of SA and WA mean that it is understandable if there is some artificial disparity between the rating pools (after all, no rating system can keep parity between two isolated pools of players). It would be interesting to know for example how many games by WA players are played outside of WA in any given year. I would guess that the number is usually probably less than 100, and that most of those are likely Juniors.

Ian Rout
25-02-2005, 03:44 PM
Underrating problems at the lower end of the ACT system are well documented. Has this had an effect on the top end of the system?

I don't really think so. It was certainly true in the past that there was a downdraft effect (1200-strength players rated 1100 wouldn't pull 1800 downs because they wouldn't beat 1800s anyway, but they would pull 1300s down who in turn would pull 1400s down etc), which could be easily observed because active players would fall behind inactive players. However there is not a big under-rating factor now, partly through a non-zero-sum system and partly through more regular lists.

The ACT list can be misleading at times because of itinerants who have just moved in or out and the system hasn't caught up. I think these effects more or less cancel on the current list, though one listed top ten player who as far as I know really does live in ACT has only ever played a handful of games here and none in the last year.

rob
25-02-2005, 04:06 PM
It's interesting to compare three 'states' with similar numbers of registered players (WA, SA and ACT).

WA has the higher average rating in the top 20, and a much higher median (Tao and Chapman compensate in SA for the rest). I expect that the difference in average would be more noticable for (say) the top 50.
The average rating for WA & SA top 20 is virtually the same (the 2 ppl you mention have a considerable effect). For the top 50 WA's average is about 50 points higher than SA.



Underrating problems at the lower end of the ACT system are well documented. Has this had an effect on the top end of the system?
I know I gave details for each state, but I hope in making comparisons ppl take care in their interpretation.

I understand that the ACT and Qld have been very effective at getting a lot of juniors rated and hence their proportions of players U1300 (and consequently other rating groups) is much different to the rest of Aus.



The isolation of SA and WA mean that it is understandable if there is some artificial disparity between the rating pools (after all, no rating system can keep parity between two isolated pools of players). It would be interesting to know for example how many games by WA players are played outside of WA in any given year. I would guess that the number is usually probably less than 100, and that most of those are likely Juniors.
8 WA juniors played in the Aus juniors and just 2 ppl in the Aus open (usually about 5). Apart from the schools events thats about it - splendid isolation :)

pax
27-02-2005, 07:13 AM
The average rating for WA & SA top 20 is virtually the same (the 2 ppl you mention have a considerable effect). For the top 50 WA's average is about 50 points higher than SA.

I said the average for WA was higher, I didn't say by how much ;) As I pointed out, the median is a much more telling measure.

jenni
27-02-2005, 12:17 PM
This is a good example of how silly the ratings debate can get. Why pick on Peter? There are 3 other juniors - Michael Wei, Gareth Oliver and Junta Ikeda who are also rated higher than Andrey plus Ian Rout.

FG7 has it in for Peter, because he had the impudence to represent the ACT in the Australian Championships. If (when) Michael, Gareth and Ian do the same, no doubt they will incur an equal amount of disdain.

More and more of the ACT juniors are playing in tournaments interstate, so their ratings have the opportunity to increase (very hard for top players in the ACT to increase, if they stay at home).

Andrey doesn't play much - got slaughtered by the juniors in the 2003 ACT Championships and doesn't play interstate. As a consequence he has the rating that represents his current playing level, if not inherant chess ability. In the 2003 ACT Championships, Bliznyuk lost to Junta (rated 1629), Jeremy Reading (1397), Milan Grcic (1791), Kishore Sreetharan (1135) and drew with Chris Tran (1288). (Ratings as at that time). Peter came in with 3 half point byes and still won the tournament. It is hard not to feel that Peter was playing better than Bliznyuk. At the ANU, once again ACT players took their toll, with Andrey losing to Ian Rout and ACT junior Jeremy Neeman.

On the whole the ratings reflect quite well a person's position in their local pool, while perhaps not translating outside the pool.

Trizza
27-02-2005, 01:02 PM
Of those in the wa top 20 I'd say that the most likely to drop out are Ted Fletcher (1935!), Frank Silas (1927!), Robert Baumgartner (1870!). Although Ted may drop out due to inactivity rather than playing. Other likely drop-outs due to inactivity are Michael Wilkins (2123!), Boyd McCamon (2103!), and Andrew Kuklinski (1921!).

Glenn Tomek (1920_) from Geraldton may get active enough to be in the top 20 (he was 2nd in the Christmas open), others likely to get into the top 20 (currently 1870+) this year are Gordon Dunlop (1838!!) and John Fedec (1771!!) currently 29th.

If my assumptions are off the mark, you can be sure that Tristan will point it out :owned:

I'm not sure about Frank Silas as I don't really know that many of his results of late.

Frank hasn't been living in WA for about 3 years now and as far as I know has been playing tournaments in Victoria, so he probably shouldn't be included on the WA list.

Garvinator
27-02-2005, 01:06 PM
FG7 has it in for Peter, because he had the impudence to represent the ACT in the Australian Championships. If (when) Michael, Gareth and Ian do the same, no doubt they will incur an equal amount of disdain.


I think Moulthun Ly will be next on fg7's hit list if Moulthun takes his right to play in the next Australian Championships as the defending Australian Junior Champion ;)

jenni
27-02-2005, 01:12 PM
I think Moulthun Ly will be next on fg7's hit list if Moulthun takes his right to play in the next Australian Championships as the defending Australian Junior Champion ;)

Absolutely :)

Garvinator
27-02-2005, 01:37 PM
Absolutely :)
or even worse for fg7, if we did get six or more under 1700 females at mt buller for the open ;)

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 01:40 PM
FG7 has it in for Peter, because he had the impudence to represent the ACT in the Australian Championships. If (when) Michael, Gareth and Ian do the same, no doubt they will incur an equal amount of disdain.Yes, well fg7 seems to be under a number of misaprehensions when it comes to ratings.
1) He believes we are taking points from inactive players.
This is incorrect. ACF bulletin #276 explained exactly what happened with regards inactive players.

2) He believes that "Ambitious players who want a high rating are able to manipulate their rating by becoming unstable ratings. If I play less frequently my rating becomes unstable. I can study chess, play other forms and really improve without playing a rated ACF game. Then when I am form I play a tournament and BINGO a 300 point jump from 5 games.

Of course this all depends on whether I win, but that on the other hand is the point isn't it. I think you are finding with the Glicko that some strong players are able to recognise their ability to manipulate their ratings.

Therefore any system that actively allows for a player to be rewarded through inactivity must be flawed."

Perhaps he can show an actual example where a player has achieved a high rating via this method.

3) He believes that "Strong players who return to chess are instantly discouraged by their initial results, if they are a little rusty that is. Normally it takes a player about 3-6 monthes to get back into the rythem of tournament chess. What the Glicko does however is penalise these people straight away. Hardly a happy re-introduction to chess. Moreover, hardly a way to co-erce old members into playing again."

Perhaps once again he can show an actual example.

After all if a player hasnt played for a number of years and when they return they perform 3-400 points below there rating it is entirely unreasonable that they be trated as anywhere near there previous rating.

Cat
27-02-2005, 01:57 PM
FG7 has it in for Peter, because he had the impudence to represent the ACT in the Australian Championships. If (when) Michael, Gareth and Ian do the same, no doubt they will incur an equal amount of disdain.

More and more of the ACT juniors are playing in tournaments interstate, so their ratings have the opportunity to increase (very hard for top players in the ACT to increase, if they stay at home).

Andrey doesn't play much - got slaughtered by the juniors in the 2003 ACT Championships and doesn't play interstate. As a consequence he has the rating that represents his current playing level, if not inherant chess ability. In the 2003 ACT Championships, Bliznyuk lost to Junta (rated 1629), Jeremy Reading (1397), Milan Grcic (1791), Kishore Sreetharan (1135) and drew with Chris Tran (1288). (Ratings as at that time). Peter came in with 3 half point byes and still won the tournament. It is hard not to feel that Peter was playing better than Bliznyuk. At the ANU, once again ACT players took their toll, with Andrey losing to Ian Rout and ACT junior Jeremy Neeman.

On the whole the ratings reflect quite well a person's position in their local pool, while perhaps not translating outside the pool.

And you think this is a satisfactory state of affairs? Jenni, we are living, whether we like it or not, accept it or not in a consumer driven society. Not only is it common sense to create a product that translates between regions, we have a duty to the future of chess to ensure that this is so.

Until the apparatchiks recognise this and start merchandising our game our destiny will remain uncertain. It is no coincidence that the Olympiad appeal crashed, despite the teams outstanding performance - and no coincidence Dennis cannot obtain sponsorship for next years open. There is no vision for the ACF, and without vision there is no belief. Until some of these hard truths are faced, there is no way forward.

It is entirely unreasonable to expect individuals, teenagers in particular, to trot interstate in order to progress in their sport - for any sport. In any sport such an undertaking would only be expected at representitive level, not a prerequisite to obtaining representitive level. One can be a virtuouso painist in Queensland (believe it or not), or a concert violinist without ever having to travel further than Brisbane. Yet our chess overseers cannot get to grips with the fact our sport needs these people more than they need chess.

They sit in their Babel Tower espousing a non-sensical unreality which presumably emminates from their own worldly misconceptions, expecting some kind of gratutity from an incredulous and skeptical chess community. They ask no question to the wider community, treat concerns with disdain and pay no interest to the regional affairs of their constituency. It's an arrogance that deserves contempt and it is little wonder there have been so many disparaging words written in the cyberspace over the last 12 months.

I was disappointed with the public reaction to Mt Buller, but it is a consequence of the mistrust and lack of faith the wider chess public have in the wisdom of their administrators. Thats not to say the hours of selfless dedication are not appreciated, but it is to say that all this is worthless if there is no intellegence in that administration.

I really wonder how bad things have to get before anyone takes notice or any vision is forthcoming? The more you excuse the situation the more you encourage the malaise. The sleeping sickness that has a hold on Australian Chess can only be treated with some tough medicine.

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 02:12 PM
Your argument as usual is spurious at best.

Explain to us all how an U12 tennis player from the Gold Coast knows how good a player he is compared to other U12 players in other parts of QLD, or compares to U12 players in other states.

Garvinator
27-02-2005, 02:12 PM
It is entirely unreasonable to expect individuals, teenagers in particular, to trot interstate in order to progress in their sport - for any sport. In any sport such an undertaking would only be expected at representitive level, not a prerequisite to obtaining representitive level. One can be a virtuouso painist in Queensland (believe it or not), or a concert violinist without ever having to travel further than Brisbane. Yet our chess overseers cannot get to grips with the fact our sport needs these people more than they need chess.
this is incorrect in so many aspects.

1) even if the person was a virtuoso pianist in qld, they would most likely not be recognised or respected until they had performed on a wider stage than one state. Same with chess players. A player might be great in their own state, but can they travel. Different playing habits, travel etc, the ability to cope with all these factors and still performing to an elite level is the true test of a players ability.

Tournaments are not just held in one state or in the hypothetical players home state. What use is it to be great in your home state, if you cant travel to australian championships/open and perform at the standard of a great player????

2) In many sports, players have to travel to get to new competition, it can actually be easier in this era to travel interstate easier than it is to play in your home state.

Your thoughts encourage ppl to stay at home and would continue to separate australian chess and keep it state based. Players have to travel to meet new competition and find different playing styles and new approaches. That is a fact.

But again you are offering nothing new or visionary.

Cat
27-02-2005, 04:10 PM
this is incorrect in so many aspects.

1) even if the person was a virtuoso pianist in qld, they would most likely not be recognised or respected until they had performed on a wider stage than one state. Same with chess players. A player might be great in their own state, but can they travel. Different playing habits, travel etc, the ability to cope with all these factors and still performing to an elite level is the true test of a players ability.

Nonsense. The Queensland Symphony Orchestra may not be the Berlin Philharmonic, but its still a good concert orchestra. Garvin, with the greatest respect I think you possess very little insight into the problems teenagers experience in persuing their goals. Chess has to compete with many different interests and it is up to Queensland Chess to promote what it has to offer to the juniors.


2) In many sports, players have to travel to get to new competition, it can actually be easier in this era to travel interstate easier than it is to play in your home state.

We get rugby players from TSS slipping into rep comp - by the time they have to travel interstate they already have the promise of a career. Why would they play chess, they'd be nuts?


Your thoughts encourage ppl to stay at home and would continue to separate australian chess and keep it state based. Players have to travel to meet new competition and find different playing styles and new approaches. That is a fact.

I think Graeme's set up is a great template as to how things should be happening.


But again you are offering nothing new or visionary.

And what vision do you have Garvin? You've already extolled your nightmare after the Mt Buller affair.

But since you ask, I will offer my opinions, as I have done before so there can be no such accusation levelled at me;

First establish an inventory of resources & personelle available to the ACF. The ACF must recognise the importance of private enterprise to the future of Australian Chess. There has been much damage done by the differences between Cordover and the ACF, some of it petty. It should be attempting to build bridges (if its still possible) with Cordover and work to improve relationships with other private interest in other states. In particular, enquire into how it can assist these agencies and also establish how it may be assisted by these agencies.

Dennis has suggested a softly softly approach regarding restructuring the state associations (I'm paraphrasing, he may correct me). Personally I believe this is a matter of utmost priority.

The best opportunities for chess lie in education. This is where the most fertile fields for funding lie and I believe we should be constructing an academic program that can integrate easily into the education system and be applied universally. To some extent this is happening in Queensland anyway, but if there were a national curriculum it would open the doors for chess within education and the possiblity of Government interest.

Cat
27-02-2005, 04:10 PM
Your argument as usual is spurious at best.

Explain to us all how an U12 tennis player from the Gold Coast knows how good a player he is compared to other U12 players in other parts of QLD, or compares to U12 players in other states.

See above

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 04:16 PM
See aboveYou ignored it completely hence there is nothing above to see.

Cat
27-02-2005, 04:49 PM
You ignored it completely hence there is nothing above to see.

It's there alright! We've discussed this before Bill, and you know I believe the ratings should be cross-referenced between states to a national standard, eg NSW.

What I was referring to is the development of a national education standard, similar to gradings in music, which can be a measure of a standardised achievement within the educational system.

What I think this will achieve ultimately is educational funding and a wider junior playing base.

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 05:12 PM
It's there alright!No its not. You totally ignored my question re U12's and tennis. No doubt because you cannot answer it.

We've discussed this before Bill, and you know I believe the ratings should be cross-referenced between states to a national standard, eg NSW.I am unaware of where this is done anywhere in the world with regards chess ratings. As such I dont see it happening.

What I was referring to is the development of a national education standard, similar to gradings in music, which can be a measure of a standardised achievement within the educational system.Refer to it as much as you like but there are no standard tests for chess ability. If you compare chess for juniors with sports like cricket and tennis you only know how good you are by playing against players from other areas.

jenni
27-02-2005, 07:42 PM
And you think this is a satisfactory state of affairs? Jenni, we are living, whether we like it or not, accept it or not in a consumer driven society. Not only is it common sense to create a product that translates between regions, we have a duty to the future of chess to ensure that this is so.


I suppose it doesn't really worry me, because if you live in a country town, then you expect to have to move outside of it to get services, better shopping etc.

Hordes of Canberrans go to Sydney on a regular basis in order to see shows, go shopping, so why not chess players?

If it was just to increase ratings, then perhaps it may feel an unsatisfactory state of affairs, but it is, in a very major way, in order to get more experience. Canberra players play the same people repetitively. Also we just don't have any players over 2100. Sydney and Melbourne juniors can go to their local club and play lots of people rated over 1900 - we have to travel to get that experience. Doesn't worry me, just like it doesn't worry me that anything I want to buy seems to have to be ordered in from Sydney with a minimum 6 weeks delay.

It is no different to Aus Juniors (and adults) having to travel to Europe to get the standard of play they need.


There is no vision for the ACF, and without vision there is no belief. Until some of these hard truths are faced, there is no way forward.

ACF is not the most effective organisation I have ever come across. However I prefer to try and fix things than just complain. They are currently looking for a junior selections co-ordinator - why don't you volunteer once the position is advertised and go on board and start changing thing?


It is entirely unreasonable to expect individuals, teenagers in particular, to trot interstate in order to progress in their sport - for any sport. In any sport such an undertaking would only be expected at representitive level, not a prerequisite to obtaining representitive level. One can be a virtuouso painist in Queensland (believe it or not), or a concert violinist without ever having to travel further than Brisbane. Yet our chess overseers cannot get to grips with the fact our sport needs these people more than they need chess.

.

Tamzin played in a strings group that was part of the Canberra Youth orchestra - they seemed to be forever organising overseas trips for the various Canberra groups. I know Canberra Choral groups go interstate often - our high school often hosts musical groups from overseas and interstate.

You can be a mediocre musician or sportsperson if you stay within your home town. Anyone striving to reach the top travels extensively - it is why there are constant junior music and sports "tours" whipping overseas.

I do not believe there is any "virtuoso" pianist who hasn't travelled quite a lot! Maybe Brisbane is different to Canberra - you are a big city - we are a tiny town. However the experience of sports and music people in Canberra is no different to chess people - you have to travel to get quality experience.

Denis_Jessop
27-02-2005, 08:17 PM
First establish an inventory of resources & personelle available to the ACF. The ACF must recognise the importance of private enterprise to the future of Australian Chess. There has been much damage done by the differences between Cordover and the ACF, some of it petty. It should be attempting to build bridges (if its still possible) with Cordover and work to improve relationships with other private interest in other states. In particular, enquire into how it can assist these agencies and also establish how it may be assisted by these agencies.

Dennis has suggested a softly softly approach regarding restructuring the state associations (I'm paraphrasing, he may correct me). Personally I believe this is a matter of utmost priority.



In response to this part of your posting, David, I should say that I think that it will be found as time goes on that co-operation between the ACF (and perhaps State Associations) and the part of the chess community made up of people who conduct various kinds of chess businesses will increase. Moreover, in my personal opinion, the ACF has to be prepared to pay these people for services that they may give to it as it cannot reasonably expect people whose business is chess coaching or books and equipment selling or the like to do things for the ACF for no reward. As far as sponsorship goes, the government as a source of funds is something that needs more attention as does the private sector though in the past there has been some assistance from both. The ACF has recently been considering the appointment of an expert fund-raiser. This aspect is rather different from the question of liaison with the chess-business community.

On the matter of restructure, what I was trying to say a while ago was that, although I supported the proposed restructure of the ACF's Council to make it a fully-elected Commission, the current political reality is that the proposal cannot be adopted. Moreover, even if it had been adopted, it would not have altered the constitutional powers of the ACF. Such a move would involve an even greater change in the role of the ACF vis-a-vis the States and would be consequently much harder to achieve. In those circumstances the ACF needs to ensure that it works with, and not against, State Associations as there is no room for political in-fighting in a chess community in which adminstrators and other resources are scarce enough already. I don't see restructuring of State Associations as a matter for the ACF nor does the ACF have any constitutional power to pursue such a course. That is a matter for the members of those Associations to pursue if they feel it necessary.

As a post script I was a bit puzzled by a remark in an earlier posting of yours
as follows:

"It is no coincidence that the Olympiad appeal crashed, despite the teams outstanding performance - and no coincidence Dennis cannot obtain sponsorship for next years open."

I'm not sure if your reference was intended to be to the 2005/2006 Australian Championship for which bids were recently called again or to the next Open in 2006/2007. The present situation regarding the first is that I am confident that the ACF Council will be able to allocate the event when it next meets at Easter. In the case of the second, there is still the possibity of a Mt Buller v.3 proposal, as far as I know. Also the time has not yet passed for the State with the first option on the event to exercise it - that expires on 1 July 2005 - so it is too early to say what the final outcome will be. In either case sponsorship as such is not the issue as much as finding a State Association or other body willing to bid for the right to hold the event.

Denis Jessop

Cat
27-02-2005, 09:06 PM
I suppose it doesn't really worry me, because if you live in a country town, then you expect to have to move outside of it to get services, better shopping etc.

Hordes of Canberrans go to Sydney on a regular basis in order to see shows, go shopping, so why not chess players?

If it was just to increase ratings, then perhaps it may feel an unsatisfactory state of affairs, but it is, in a very major way, in order to get more experience. Canberra players play the same people repetitively. Also we just don't have any players over 2100. Sydney and Melbourne juniors can go to their local club and play lots of people rated over 1900 - we have to travel to get that experience. Doesn't worry me, just like it doesn't worry me that anything I want to buy seems to have to be ordered in from Sydney with a minimum 6 weeks delay.

It is no different to Aus Juniors (and adults) having to travel to Europe to get the standard of play they need.

It's all about removing obstacles though, isn't it? Sometimes obstacles are insurmountable for sure, but many are simply the consequence of poor structure & organisation. You may feel confortable with your reply, but do you really think that approach is likely to be effective in the long run?

Many of the bright spots in chess have been created through the energies of 1 or 2 individuals, your ACT and our Gold Coast clubs are examples. We've been immensely fortunate to have Graeme's enthusiasm fuel our expansion. But I seriously doubt it can survive here without Graeme's presence. It's true that tremendous work has been done by others in the region, but Graeme's been alone in erecting a rhobust structure, without which others would have struggled to flourish.

If we as a chess community fail to capitalise on these gains, unless we put together structure to hold the momentum, it will eventually ebb away.


ACF is not the most effective organisation I have ever come across. However I prefer to try and fix things than just complain. They are currently looking for a junior selections co-ordinator - why don't you volunteer once the position is advertised and go on board and start changing thing?

Now that's a poisoned chalice, if ever I've seen one!

Cat
27-02-2005, 09:08 PM
In response to this part of your posting, David, I should say that I think that it will be found as time goes on that co-operation between the ACF (and perhaps State Associations) and the part of the chess community made up of people who conduct various kinds of chess businesses will increase. Moreover, in my personal opinion, the ACF has to be prepared to pay these people for services that they may give to it as it cannot reasonably expect people whose business is chess coaching or books and equipment selling or the like to do things for the ACF for no reward. As far as sponsorship goes, the government as a source of funds is something that needs more attention as does the private sector though in the past there has been some assistance from both. The ACF has recently been considering the appointment of an expert fund-raiser. This aspect is rather different from the question of liaison with the chess-business community.

On the matter of restructure, what I was trying to say a while ago was that, although I supported the proposed restructure of the ACF's Council to make it a fully-elected Commission, the current political reality is that the proposal cannot be adopted. Moreover, even if it had been adopted, it would not have altered the constitutional powers of the ACF. Such a move would involve an even greater change in the role of the ACF vis-a-vis the States and would be consequently much harder to achieve. In those circumstances the ACF needs to ensure that it works with, and not against, State Associations as there is no room for political in-fighting in a chess community in which adminstrators and other resources are scarce enough already. I don't see restructuring of State Associations as a matter for the ACF nor does the ACF have any constitutional power to pursue such a course. That is a matter for the members of those Associations to pursue if they feel it necessary.

As a post script I was a bit puzzled by a remark in an earlier posting of yours
as follows:

"It is no coincidence that the Olympiad appeal crashed, despite the teams outstanding performance - and no coincidence Dennis cannot obtain sponsorship for next years open."

I'm not sure if your reference was intended to be to the 2005/2006 Australian Championship for which bids were recently called again or to the next Open in 2006/2007. The present situation regarding the first is that I am confident that the ACF Council will be able to allocate the event when it next meets at Easter. In the case of the second, there is still the possibity of a Mt Buller v.3 proposal, as far as I know. Also the time has not yet passed for the State with the first option on the event to exercise it - that expires on 1 July 2005 - so it is too early to say what the final outcome will be. In either case sponsorship as such is not the issue as much as finding a State Association or other body willing to bid for the right to hold the event.

Denis Jessop


I'm pleased to hear. Good luck Dennis!

Cat
27-02-2005, 09:34 PM
I am unaware of where this is done anywhere in the world with regards chess ratings.

Bill, we have an unique land mass. Our population density is the lowest in the world outside the polar regions. Most of the competing chess nations have a chess tradition longer and richer than our own. We have our own, unique disadvantages to contend with. Do you think John Howard waits for instruction from the White House? Well hell no!



Refer to it as much as you like but there are no standard tests for chess ability. If you compare chess for juniors with sports like cricket and tennis you only know how good you are by playing against players from other areas.

The trouble is that chess is very unlikely to attract Government support from the Sports Ministry. If it is going to get Government money its from education and they measure everything. Chess needs to sound, smell and look educational because it needs the money. Mums love chess, they love to see their kids play chess and I think it should be marketed & branded that way. Kids have the biggest disposable income of any group, or access to it. Every man & his dog is pitching to kids, it's where the money is.

Re the under 12's and tennis, coaches identify protegees and work on them to bring them on. Only the elite will be chosen to compete interstate. When they are ready for bigger competition the coaches often target local companies like my own for sponsorship. They may also get funding from their Association or the Institute of Sport. We were involved with the sponsorship of a local tennis player who is now a household name. She was identified and brought on from an early age, and only travelled to interstate competition when she reached maturity.

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily easily transposable to chess, but until we accept that we need to nurture our kids, then I suspect we'll continue to see a large fallout rate. Of course, where our sport does have the advantage is to travel in cyberspace.

jenni
27-02-2005, 09:39 PM
It's all about removing obstacles though, isn't it? Sometimes obstacles are insurmountable for sure, but many are simply the consequence of poor structure & organisation. You may feel confortable with your reply, but do you really think that approach is likely to be effective in the long run?


Well yes I do - we've been pushing the juniors to play outside the ACT for a few years now (and it was done in the late 90's as well). Every time we have a push it results in a leap in expertise. I don't know whether anyone noticed, but ACT got 4 out of 10 titles at the ACT juniors with a near miss in a 5th one. I think it means our strategies are working.


Many of the bright spots in chess have been created through the energies of 1 or 2 individuals, your ACT and our Gold Coast clubs are examples. We've been immensely fortunate to have Graeme's enthusiasm fuel our expansion. But I seriously doubt it can survive here without Graeme's presence. It's true that tremendous work has been done by others in the region, but Graeme's been alone in erecting a rhobust structure, without which others would have struggled to flourish.

If we as a chess community fail to capitalise on these gains, unless we put together structure to hold the momentum, it will eventually ebb away.



Its a problem in any organisation - small business, schools etc. Its no secret that a principal changing schools can turn a school from a dynamic, successful one to bottom of the heap.

I do believe it is important to create structures and procedures that can be followed as the initial creators move on. However it is a fact of life that if you do not have a broad base of volunteers who can continually bring in fresh ideas and new blood, then organisations do tend to fall a bit by the wayside.

I also do believe that things are better now than they were when my kids first started playing chess. Alot of this is because of e-mail and internet. It is just so much easier to find out about competitions and coaching and exchange ideas.

We're planning to set up a mentoring group for the NECG kids - people they can e-mail for guidance and ideas all year. We're also planning to have some e-mail assignments during the year. This all helps to break down the isolation problems.

I think we should get away from the relatively tiny issue of ratings and concentrate on what really needs to be done to improve.

IMHO one of the biggest problems is the large amount of pointless nitpicking and fighting that goes on. My New Years resolution was to spend less time on the BB and more time on productive chess tasks. :)



Now that's a poisoned chalice, if ever I've seen one!

Why - its no worse than any other position - just enables you to actually do something and work from within.

antichrist
27-02-2005, 09:49 PM
I know a junior ACT tennis champ who comes to NSW comps and gets knowcked out first round. No bull.

But with chess being so computer friendly games could be played romotely, the players using 3 dimentional pieces. Saves money and pollution. Not as good as face to face but...

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2005, 10:27 PM
I would love to know how Tim Anderson(Vic), once represented (Tas) in Oz Champs got his rating to 2173. In my estimates if he played a 6 game match against somebody from MCC like Ascaro Pecori or Thai Ly he would probably lose about 4 1/2- 1 1/2. Just my opinion from watching him play over the years.

More like your opinion based on your belief that the MCC is the centre of the universe on every question that could possibly arise in Australian chess.

What you say is rubbish. You know as well as I do that Pecori's results are spectacularly volatile and that his rating is kept higher than it otherwise would be by frequent upset wins over much stronger players and lower than it otherwise would be by losses to people who players much weaker than him would clean up more reliably. As such attempting to predict the result of a match between Pecori and a player of similar rating is ridiculous, anything could happen.

Thai Ly is rated 1825. I have played him, but only in casual games (+1=1 to me). Sure, he's a good player but I would not give any player rated below 1900 much chance in a match against Anderson unless that player was less than 12 years old and improving at 100+ points per period. Whether Anderson is as strong as his rating or not he is certainly over the current 2000 strength and has been for many years.

As for the rating in question, it's inevitable that in any system some players will be slightly overrated and some slightly underrated at any given time. This is a product of stochastic differences between a player's strength and their actual results, also known as "granularity", so saying this indicates flaws in the system (as that useless troll DoroPhil does) just shows the ignorance of those making such a claim. If you can come up with a system that is completely accurate in its treatment of players who just got 9/9 without also being overconservative in its treatment of rapidly improving players in general then give yourself a medal.

DoroPhil: I'd take you up on your bet (I'd expect him to lose a few points when next playing following this result, but not 50) except that would involve you telling me who you are, so I doubt you will be interested.

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 10:31 PM
Bill, we have an unique land mass. Our population density is the lowest in the world outside the polar regions. Most of the competing chess nations have a chess tradition longer and richer than our own. We have our own, unique disadvantages to contend with. Do you think John Howard waits for instruction from the White House? Well hell no!I said anywhere in the world. I didnt mention the USA.
In fact FIDE certainly dont do it. I seriously doubt a 1949 rated player in Australia is the equivalent of one in Europe.


The trouble is that chess is very unlikely to attract Government support from the Sports Ministry. If it is going to get Government money its from education and they measure everything. Chess needs to sound, smell and look educational because it needs the money. Mums love chess, they love to see their kids play chess and I think it should be marketed & branded that way. Kids have the biggest disposable income of any group, or access to it. Every man & his dog is pitching to kids, it's where the money is.

Re the under 12's and tennis, coaches identify protegees and work on them to bring them on. Only the elite will be chosen to compete interstate. When they are ready for bigger competition the coaches often target local companies like my own for sponsorship. They may also get funding from their Association or the Institute of Sport. We were involved with the sponsorship of a local tennis player who is now a household name. She was identified and brought on from an early age, and only travelled to interstate competition when she reached maturity.So what. Thats got nothing to do with regional variations and ratings.

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily easily transposable to chess, but until we accept that we need to nurture our kids, then I suspect we'll continue to see a large fallout rate. Of course, where our sport does have the advantage is to travel in cyberspace.Nurturing kids has nothing to do with ratings.

Cat
27-02-2005, 11:04 PM
I said anywhere in the world. I didnt mention the USA.
In fact FIDE certainly dont do it. I seriously doubt a 1949 rated player in Australia is the equivalent of one in Europe.

So what. Thats got nothing to do with regional variations and ratings.
Nurturing kids has nothing to do with ratings.


Wrong

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2005, 11:06 PM
WrongThe only thing wrong is your reply which refutes nothing I said.

pax
28-02-2005, 09:11 AM
It's there alright! We've discussed this before Bill, and you know I believe the ratings should be cross-referenced between states to a national standard, eg NSW.

How exactly do you think ratings can be cross-referenced if there isn't any play between two pools?

rob
28-02-2005, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure about Frank Silas as I don't really know that many of his results of late.

I'm surprised you didn't notice that Frank (1927!) only scored 4/11 in the Aus Open.

Cat
28-02-2005, 10:03 PM
How exactly do you think ratings can be cross-referenced if there isn't any play between two pools?

Pools aren't pure.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:20 AM
More like your opinion based on your belief that the MCC is the centre of the universe on every question that could possibly arise in Australian chess. I don't think so, still you could learn something from MCC.



What you say is rubbish.

Shut up you abusive idiot



You know as well as I do that Pecori's results are spectacularly volatile and that his rating is kept higher than it otherwise would be by frequent upset wins over much stronger players and lower than it otherwise would be by losses to people who players much weaker than him would clean up more reliably. As such attempting to predict the result of a match between Pecori and a player of similar rating is ridiculous, anything could happen.



No understanding of Victorian chess. Do you actually believe that Tim Anderson is a new player, who hasn't been around the traps?



A

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:48 AM
Hello,

FG7 has it in for Peter, because he had the impudence to represent the ACT in the Australian Championships. If (when) Michael, Gareth and Ian do the same, no doubt they will incur an equal amount of disdain.



You are talking complete nonsense. You may do wonderful things for juniors and are certainly a plus for Canberra chess, but one thing you ain't is objective. I have it in for nobody. I am interested in the concept of chess strength, not ratings.

See this debate is not about Canberra chess. It is about chess players. All I did was ask who did the Canberra players think was stronger. You gave your answer and good on you for doing that, but it dosen't mean that I have it in for anyone. So stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Secondly, I am more interested in hearing from players who have played these people. Since I regard personal relationships as being more important then 'objective' facts. What would be more interesting is to understand how somebody like the 'bliz', who I rate as a terrific Canberra player, could lose to a 1300.

So something like this would be more in order. "Playing the guy I got the feeling that he was just completely out of form, he didn't seem to see any of my threats" or " the guys a champ he built up beautifully and then just destroyed me in the endgame"

I regard this sort of information as chess, not he lost to a 1300 therefore he must be bad. Hence I am not particularly interested in your opinions, even though you are clearly entitled to them JM, since you are not a chess player but just another organiser.

Cheers FG7

jenni
01-03-2005, 09:29 AM
but one thing you ain't is objective. I have it in for nobody. I am interested in the concept of chess strength, not ratings.

See this debate is not about Canberra chess. It is about chess players. All I did was ask who did the Canberra players think was stronger. You gave your answer and good on you for doing that, but it dosen't mean that I have it in for anyone. So stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.



hmm- I am not totally objective, because like many others I can't help being pro my own state (and particularly the juniors.) However many statements from you on this subject led me to infer your agenda. e.g. your attacks on both Svetozar Stojic and Narelle for also having the impudence to play in the Aus Champs. (Everyone remember the horrible Nellie the Elephant and clowns thread?)



Secondly, I am more interested in hearing from players who have played these people. Since I regard personal relationships as being more important then 'objective' facts. What would be more interesting is to understand how somebody like the 'bliz', who I rate as a terrific Canberra player, could lose to a 1300.

So something like this would be more in order. "Playing the guy I got the feeling that he was just completely out of form, he didn't seem to see any of my threats" or " the guys a champ he built up beautifully and then just destroyed me in the endgame"

I regard this sort of information as chess, not he lost to a 1300 therefore he must be bad. Hence I am not particularly interested in your opinions, even though you are clearly entitled to them JM, since you are not a chess player but just another organiser.

Cheers FG7

Don't you love his arrogance? So if you are a bad chess player with a low chess rating, you are not a chess player? Hey Frosty and Chess Dad - want to join in with me and verbally thump him?

Incidentally (shock horror) I played the ACT Championships that Mr Bliznyuk struggled in. He was rusty, but more importantly he was playing a flawed opening that his opponents were able to easily prepare against - its the problem with these pesky juniors - they automatically prepare for their opponents and actually know how to do it well....

jenni
01-03-2005, 09:39 AM
Oh, I don't know about that. If the top ACT or Tas players moved to Sydney or Melbourne, worked really hard on their chess, and played lots of games against the leading players from those cities who knows what might happen ....

Actually it is really interesting following the rise and rise of Vladimir Smirnov.

He is now ranked no 8 in NSW with a rating of 2296 - he couldn't keep his rating above 2000 in Canberra..... (Please don't leap on me Dr Richards :whistle: )

Vlad was an enormous loss to Canberra. He volunteered to take on a group of Canberra's best juniors and did a group session with them every week. Apart from his chess knowledge he really imparted a love of the game to them.

arosar
01-03-2005, 09:46 AM
Vlad was an enormous loss to Canberra. He volunteered to take on a group of Canberra's best juniors and did a group session with them every week. Apart from his chess knowledge he really imparted a love of the game to them.

Mr Smirnov is now a regular at Hyde Park. He spends his Sat and Sun avros with young son Anton here at the park. Very hard to beat. He could go on for hours without dropping a game. Because of this we always love to play him because beating him is like an achievement. After the park we all go home and have it out again on playchess.

Mr Smirnov is one of those super-brained PhD'd chess players. A true gentleman. And you can't have him back.

AR

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 09:49 AM
You are talking complete nonsense. You may do wonderful things for juniors and are certainly a plus for Canberra chess, but one thing you ain't is objective. I have it in for nobody. I am interested in the concept of chess strength, not ratings.Your concept of chess strength is totally subjective. Ratings measure how well a player is performing based on their actual results, not on your gut feel.
BTW I notice you totally ignored my post #49 in this thread. Were the questions too hard for you?

jenni
01-03-2005, 10:09 AM
Mr Smirnov is one of those super-brained PhD'd chess players. A true gentleman. And you can't have him back.

AR
Next time you see him, say hello - tell him we all still miss him. :(

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 11:01 AM
hmm- I am not totally objective, because like many others I can't help being pro my own state (and particularly the juniors.) However many statements from you on this subject led me to infer your agenda. e.g. your attacks on both Svetozar Stojic and Narelle for also having the impudence to play in the Aus Champs. (Everyone remember the horrible Nellie the Elephant and clowns thread?)



Do I have to spell it out for you. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. I did it 3 times,for your benefit, do you get the idea yet?

When you can get over that hurdle, you might want to consider the implications of what I am saying to you. Narelle has played in the Australian Championships, Australia's premium tournament. She is unable to make the cut in the Victorian championships, in fact she has never played in it. Someboby like Dragicevic, who finished third in the Vic Champs, beat Rogers at Doeberl, currently would not get into the Australian championship if it was based on rating alone. This is despite the 'objective' fact that he would be number 1 on the Canberra list if he moved there. This is the truth, if you want to argue around it that is your business, but to suggest that I have it in for people is just immature.


All I am pointing out to you is, that it is pretty funny system that rewards 'average' events at the expense of talented individuals. You may want to get patriotic about the Canberra state championship being a strong event. I would suggest that it would be harder to win Doeberl or even Begonia. Why don't you compare, with Bill, the rating performances needed to win such events as opposed to the Canberra state championship. Better still why don't you compare Dragicevic's recent rating performance in the Vic Champs.

Ultimately it is up to the ACF to consider what it thinks is appropriate for entry into its premium events. However, I would like to point out that from a marketing or commercial point of view, the ACF would be hard pressed to push a product that was not able to deliver on its promises.

If you have any other problems with Canberra players being underrated take it up with Bill.




Don't you love his arrogance? So if you are a bad chess player with a low chess rating, you are not a chess player? Hey Frosty and Chess Dad - want to join in with me and verbally thump him?

If anybody is being arrogant it is yourself. All I stated was that I am not interested in 'outsiders' who do not play chess giving out boring sermons on why X is a better player then Y based on a mere statistics such as 1 0. Is this really a surprise? I can think of nothing worse then just seeing a result sheet without any human interaction. That said I apologise for calling you a non-chess player, but note I did not say anything about your strength did I? I merely presumed that you had given up chess to become an organiser. Maybe you owe me an apology. It seems the elitism you accuse me of is hardly warranted. For what it is worth I applaud the fact that you play chess.



Incidentally (shock horror) I played the ACT Championships that Mr Bliznyuk struggled in. He was rusty, but more importantly he was playing a flawed opening that his opponents were able to easily prepare against - its the problem with these pesky juniors - they automatically prepare for their opponents and actually know how to do it well....

Look this is better. It gives the reader some idea of what is happening in chess games. It shows us the human interaction of tournament chess, again I congratulate you on this....but lets cut the BS, "juniors know how to prepare well". I roll my eyes with the naivety of such a statement. While I am at it, I would like to ask you- Where do juniors go after you build up their egos to such a point that they actually believe their own publicity. Did I hear you say above 18 out to the scrapyard, Under 18 keep the inner glow going?

cheers FG7

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 11:19 AM
Your concept of chess strength is totally subjective.

So what, your point is?

Have I called for the scrapping of ratings in this thread-No. Believe it or not, as a player I am actually more interested in my own subjective interpretation. When I play somebody I am actually interested in how I and they will play the game. I don't sit there and say, "jeez that person has a rating of X, I must win or lose based on that point".

That said I like to know how other players subjectively interpret other peoples playing styles. There is nothing wrong with this view, it is a valid way of looking at chess strength. If i ask for a comparison of players based on feelings that is a valid interpretation, whether you believe it to be or not, BG

Just for the record, I never said "Hey lets base the whole rating system on this sort of measurement", so put the comments in their context.



Ratings measure how well a player is performing based on their actual results, not on your gut feel. No shit Sherlock, Did I actually ask for ratings? or did I ask what other people thought about their chess strength?



BTW I notice you totally ignored my post #49 in this thread. Were the questions too hard for you? Sorry missed the point. Colin Savage and myself, after losing 160 points for 4 games I felt like quitting chess.

cheers Fg7

jenni
01-03-2005, 11:21 AM
Do I have to spell it out for you. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. I did it 3 times,for your benefit, do you get the idea yet?

When you can get over that hurdle, you might want to consider the implications of what I am saying to you. Narelle has played in the Australian Championships, Australia's premium tournament. She is unable to make the cut in the Victorian championships, in fact she has never played in it. Someboby like Dragicevic, who finished third in the Vic Champs, beat Rogers at Doeberl, currently would not get into the Australian championship if it was based on rating alone. This is despite the 'objective' fact that he would be number 1 on the Canberra list if he moved there. This is the truth, if you want to argue around it that is your business, but to suggest that I have it in for people is just immature.


All I am pointing out to you is, that it is pretty funny system that rewards 'average' events at the expense of talented individuals. You may want to get patriotic about the Canberra state championship being a strong event. I would suggest that it would be harder to win Doeberl or even Begonia. Why don't you compare, with Bill, the rating performances needed to win such events as opposed to the Canberra state championship. Better still why don't you compare Dragicevic's recent rating performance in the Vic Champs.

Ultimately it is up to the ACF to consider what it thinks is appropriate for entry into its premium events. However, I would like to point out that from a marketing or commercial point of view, the ACF would be hard pressed to push a product that was not able to deliver on its promises.


Sigh - yes we all know what you are on about - you've rabitted on about it for years. (Actually I am not entirely unsympathetic to what you have proposed - I have always felt that an entry system based on a series of qualifying events would be quite good, as long as they are accessible and fair to all). It is because I know what you want that I felt I saw (and still do), an undercurrent in your remarks about Peter.



That said I apologise for calling you a non-chess player, but note I did not say anything about your strength did I? I merely presumed that you had given up chess to become an organiser. Maybe you owe me an apology. It seems the elitism you accuse me of is hardly warranted. For what it is worth I applaud the fact that you play chess.


I was an organiser first and a player second. Even if I was an ex player, I think that still qualifies me to comment. I still feel Andrey's results show why he currently can be regarded as not playing as well as Peter - even if he is inherantly a better player (or maybe was a better player). I would never be a major supporter of the concept that ratings = strength. However they do tend to show current trends in playing ability, whether that is because the person is tired after work and not playing their best or whatever.

I am happy to hear you have some admiration for a Canberra player's ability even if your opinion (like you knowledge of my playing), is very out of date.



"juniors know how to prepare well". I roll my eyes with the naivety of such a statement. While I am at it, I would like to ask you- Where do juniors go after you build up their egos to such a point that they actually believe their own publicity. Did I hear you say above 18 out to the scrapyard, Under 18 keep the inner glow going?

cheers FG7

No I just view them as nice people for ever. I am just as happy to praise Vlad Smirnov or Gary Lane or other good chessplayers and decent human beings as I am to say nice things about the juniors.

pax
01-03-2005, 11:49 AM
Ok, lets start selecting the qualifiers for the Australian Championships based on FG7's "gut instinct". Brilliant. That will definitely reduce the arguments.

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 11:57 AM
Do I have to spell it out for you. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. Chess strength not chess states. I did it 3 times,for your benefit, do you get the idea yet?

When you can get over that hurdle, you might want to consider the implications of what I am saying to you. Narelle has played in the Australian Championships, Australia's premium tournament. She is unable to make the cut in the Victorian championships, in fact she has never played in it. Someboby like Dragicevic, who finished third in the Vic Champs, beat Rogers at Doeberl, currently would not get into the Australian championship if it was based on rating alone. This is despite the 'objective' fact that he would be number 1 on the Canberra list if he moved there. This is the truth, if you want to argue around it that is your business, but to suggest that I have it in for people is just immature.As usual you just seem to be carrying on over essentially nothing.

The vast majority of players qualify for the Aus Champioonship via rating.
The previous Aus champ automatically qualifies. This is obviously entirely reasonable.
The current Womens Champion qualifies.
The current Junior Champion qualifies.
It is not the fault of the womens champion that stronger women may have chosen not to participate.
As such allowing them automatic entry is not unreasonable.
On top of those at most 7 qualify by virtue of being their states champion. Of these 7 the majority would also qualify by rating. It is after all the Asutralian championship, so it is only reasonable that State champions be given automatic entry.

All I am pointing out to you is, that it is pretty funny system that rewards 'average' events at the expense of talented individuals. You may want to get patriotic about the Canberra state championship being a strong event. I would suggest that it would be harder to win Doeberl or even Begonia. Why don't you compare, with Bill, the rating performances needed to win such events as opposed to the Canberra state championship. Better still why don't you compare Dragicevic's recent rating performance in the Vic Champs.Dragicevics rating history is:

Results For Player Domagoj Dragicevic
Current Normal Rating = 2138

Players Historical Rating Performance Normal
Period Rating Perf Score Games
Aug 2000 1783 15.5 26
Dec 2000 1824 1912 21.0 30
Apr 2001 1854 1968 9.0 14
Aug 2001 1863 1877 9.5 14
Dec 2001 1857 1856 10.5 23
Apr 2002 1843 1822 18.0 28
Aug 2002 1830 1784 10.0 15
Dec 2002 1850 1892 5.5 9
Jun 2003 1876 1928 8.0 13
Sep 2003 1858 1819 15.0 23
Nov 2003 1861 0.0 0
Dec 2003 1910 1981 12.5 19
Mar 2004 2032 2077 27.0 37
Jun 2004 2060 2150 13.0 20
Sep 2004 2090 2160 20.5 30
Dec 2004 2122 2214 14.5 21
Mar 2005 2138 2174 17.0 23
Note that under the old ACF Elo system his ratings history would be:

Players Historical Rating Performance Normal
Period Rating Perf Score Games
Aug 2000 1783 15.5 26
Dec 2000 1840 1907 21.0 30
Apr 2001 1864 1964 9.0 14
Aug 2001 1867 1873 9.5 14
Dec 2001 1864 1860 10.5 23
Apr 2002 1849 1822 18.0 28
Aug 2002 1836 1783 10.0 15
Dec 2002 1846 1889 5.5 9
Jun 2003 1860 1923 8.0 13
Sep 2003 1845 1803 15.0 23
Nov 2003 1846 0.0 0
Dec 2003 1894 1974 12.5 19
Mar 2004 2019 2060 27.0 37
Jun 2004 2046 2135 13.0 20
Sep 2004 2077 2143 20.5 30
Dec 2004 2110 2201 14.5 21
Mar 2005 2125 2164 17.0 23


Ultimately it is up to the ACF to consider what it thinks is appropriate for entry into its premium events. However, I would like to point out that from a marketing or commercial point of view, the ACF would be hard pressed to push a product that was not able to deliver on its promises.You just dont get it. It is entirely reasonable that State champions plus the womens and junior champion be given entry.

pax
01-03-2005, 12:24 PM
Lets get a few things straight about qualifications for the Aus Championships:

-The players with chances to win will always qualify by rating.
-The majority of players qualify by rating.
-There will very seldom be more than 3 or 4 players who qualify via means other than rating.
-The benefit of including those 3 or 4 players is very significant, and far outweighs the (negligible) cost:


-Encouragement for the top juniors/women.
-Encouragement for the top players from isolated states.
-Incentive to enter and do well in the Aus Junior, Aus Women, State Champs.
-Ensuring that the Australian Championship is a truly national event (sponsors would be most unimpressed if the Championships only included players from 3 states).

Rincewind
01-03-2005, 12:27 PM
Ok, lets start selecting the qualifiers for the Australian Championships based on FG7's "gut instinct". Brilliant. That will definitely reduce the arguments.

Do you really think that is wise when he refers to the ACT Champion as the Canberra [sic] State [sic] Champion? :D

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:29 PM
Ok, lets start selecting the qualifiers for the Australian Championships based on FG7's "gut instinct". Brilliant. That will definitely reduce the arguments.

This is a really silly statement that shows no understanding about what is being discussed.

My subjective interpretation or "gut feeling" is valid to me. That is why I am allowed to ask such questions. I am interested in other peoples subjective interpretations or "gut feelings" for them. That point must be obvious. I am allowed to ask "what do you think of X?", or would you prefer me not to be allowed to ask such harmless questions, pax?

I, at no point said that that Australian Championship selection should be based on my "gut feeling". For the record, I have consistently argued against such a position. I have suggested that letting in "talented juniors' was such a corruption of the system. I have pointed out that in the past, people like Mr Jamieson have suggested that this is fair and equitable, whilst I have said that IMO this is not.

Just so that you understand my position I will repeat my position for the umpteenth time. Spots in the Australian championship ought to be earn't by playing the best chess possible. It needs to be dynamic and active. We ought not to accept a system that caters for mediocre entry requirements that privelage a few over the many.

Have a good look at the top twenty for each state then ask yourself what is going on here?

cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 12:32 PM
So what, your point is?

Have I called for the scrapping of ratings in this thread-No. Believe it or not, as a player I am actually more interested in my own subjective interpretation. When I play somebody I am actually interested in how I and they will play the game. I don't sit there and say, "jeez that person has a rating of X, I must win or lose based on that point".Only a fool would believe that. However it is entirely reasonable to expect that player A has a better chance of beating player B if Player A outrates player B.

That said I like to know how other players subjectively interpret other peoples playing styles. There is nothing wrong with this view, it is a valid way of looking at chess strength. If i ask for a comparison of players based on feelings that is a valid interpretation, whether you believe it to be or not, BGTrue, but its not a valid interpretation on how to determine how strong players really are.

Just for the record, I never said "Hey lets base the whole rating system on this sort of measurement", so put the comments in their context.In the context you raised it you suggested A was stronger than B. I pointed out that that assessment should be based on actual results.

No shit Sherlock, Did I actually ask for ratings? or did I ask what other people thought about their chess strength?You implied subjective chess strength was a valid means of determining somesones performance/eligibility. I suggested such subjective measures are invalid and that their strength should be based on their actual results not your gut feel.


Sorry missed the point. Colin Savage and myself, after losing 160 points for 4 games I felt like quitting chess.Colin Savage is currently not on the ACF master file and appears not to have been since at least 1992.

As for yourself your rating dropped from 1944 in April 2002 to 1805 in Dec 2003 based on the following results:

5/09/2003 CV Winter Interclub (Eastern Zone)

1 Jusuf Pekmezovic 1824 0.0
2 Dusan Stojic 1848 0.0
3 Marcel Rothlisberger 1811 0.0
5 Scot A Sharman 1745 0.0
Performance Rating = Below 1407
It went back up to 1923 in the March 2004 period, but remember this includes the 70 point uplift. If we take the 70 points off all your ratings since March 2004 then your ratings would be:

Mar 2004 1853
Sep 2004 1849
Dec 2004 1860
Mar 2005 1855

All of which are closer to the 1805 rating rather than near your April 2002 rating of 1944.

I note however you completely ignored responding to my comments re your points 1) and 20 in post #49.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:38 PM
All I am pointing out to you is, that it is pretty funny system that rewards 'average' events at the expense of talented individuals. You may want to get patriotic about the Canberra state championship being a strong event. I would suggest that it would be harder to win Doeberl or even Begonia. Why don't you compare, with Bill, the rating performances needed to win such events as opposed to the Canberra state championship. Better still why don't you compare Dragicevic's recent rating performance in the Vic Champs.
Look Bill,
I have no idea why your going on about an individual players rating performances in a specific period. It is not what I asked ought to be compared. Why don't you compare the results for the above tournamnets based on rating. Wouldn't that be a more objective way to measure the relevence to entry for the Australian Championship.

cheers Fg7

Ian Rout
01-03-2005, 12:43 PM
All I am pointing out to you is, that it is pretty funny system that rewards 'average' events at the expense of talented individuals. You may want to get patriotic about the Canberra state championship being a strong event. I would suggest that it would be harder to win Doeberl or even Begonia. Why don't you compare, with Bill, the rating performances needed to win such events as opposed to the Canberra state championship. Better still why don't you compare Dragicevic's recent rating performance in the Vic Champs.

This is a good point that fg7 raises. Not so much to look at the performance needed to win the ACT Championship as compared to the Doeberl, which is generally won by a GM or senior IM and so proves nothing, but as compared to the standard for entry to the Australian Championship.

Instead of talking to Bill, I punched the results of the last couple of winners into Barry Cox's calculator and, by trying out test figures to determine the rating at which the results would be break-even, found that that the performance of the 2004 winner (when it was not a qualifying event for the Aust Championship) was 2100 and in 2003 (when it was a qualifier) was around 2200.

In other words it's not that fg7's argument is without merit, it's that his premise, that the ACT Championship is a weak event in which the winner performs well below the cut-off standard, is questionable.

It should therefore be unsurprising to see those qualifying that way performing not too badly; last time round Peter Jovanovic made 5/11, hardly a failure, and previously Ian Wright won against the eventual co-winner and also against an IM. Granted they didn't threaten to win the tournament, but the same can be said of a few others, even titled players (and even Victorians).

As a postscript, it should also be noted that whereas Melbourne players have plenty of opportunity to get their ratings up if they are good enough, the ACT Championship is the only chance that Canberra players get to qualify (in fact really only half a chance, as it's often won by interstate or even international visitors).

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 12:43 PM
Look Bill,
I have no idea why your going on about an individual players rating performances in a specific period. It is not what I asked ought to be compared. Why don't you compare the results for the above tournamnets based on rating. Wouldn't that be a more objective way to measure the relevence to entry for the Australian Championship.You raised that particular player. The point is that at no stage has his rating hit 2150 and remember all his post Dec 2003 ratings have the 70 point uplift.
Therefore if the Australian championship entry limit was lifted to 2220 he wouldnt be close, not that I expect nor would necessarily recommend that happening.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:51 PM
Lets get a few things straight about qualifications for the Aus Championships:

-The players with chances to win will always qualify by rating.
-The majority of players qualify by rating.
-There will very seldom be more than 3 or 4 players who qualify via means other than rating.
-The benefit of including those 3 or 4 players is very significant, and far outweighs the (negligible) cost:


-Encouragement for the top juniors/women.
-Encouragement for the top players from isolated states.
-Incentive to enter and do well in the Aus Junior, Aus Women, State Champs.
-Ensuring that the Australian Championship is a truly national event (sponsors would be most unimpressed if the Championships only included players from 3 states).


I disagree totally. You are not looking at the big picture. The big picture, which I am arguing for is dynamic. It is about producing an Australian chess structure that aims to have a recognised and active series of logical progressions towards the pinacle of Australian chess. One that in my opinion ought to improve the tournament entries for all the major ACF events. its about recognising that the current format is outdated and not in line with current chess praxis. It should be about merit, not handicap.

Whoever wins the Doeberl cup is a serious player, not dare I say it the Canberra Champion. Unfortunatly this is derogatory to Canberra champions, but its not meant to be. We ought to ask somebody like Ian Rout, how would it feel beating the likes of Rogers and Johansen to win the Doeberl cup as opposed to a state championship in which they cannot play. I am sure if he was honest with himself, he would much rather win Doeberl then the championship

cheers FG7

pax
01-03-2005, 12:51 PM
Have a good look at the top twenty for each state then ask yourself what is going on here?

So some states are stronger than others. No problem, that is reflected in representation in the Championships. However, you yourself are so keen to point out that the rating system is not perfect. The state championship qualification ensures that rating disparity does not prevent representation from every state. What a great system!

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:53 PM
Do you really think that is wise when he refers to the ACT Champion as the Canberra [sic] State [sic] Champion? :D

Semantics, accurate,correct, but still semantics

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 12:59 PM
So some states are stronger than others. No problem, that is reflected in representation in the Championships. However, you yourself are so keen to point out that the rating system is not perfect. The state championship qualification ensures that rating disparity does not prevent representation from every state. What a great system!

Is this an arguement or an excuse? Moreover, it is a completely seperate arguement to anything Bill is producing.

When you say great, which you have qualified, what does that mean? Who is it great for?
Is it great for junior burnout?
Is it great for womens chess?
is it great for tournament entry?
Is it great for the ACF?
Is it great for the Australian Championship?
Is it great for the adult chess populace (as a whole)?


or is it great for you?

Cheers Fg7

P.S where is your evidence that it is great?

pax
01-03-2005, 01:04 PM
Whoever wins the Doeberl cup is a serious player, not dare I say it the Canberra Champion. Unfortunatly this is derogatory to Canberra champions, but its not meant to be. We ought to ask somebody like Ian Rout, how would it feel beating the likes of Rogers and Johansen to win the Doeberl cup as opposed to a state championship in which they cannot play. I am sure if he was honest with himself, he would much rather win Doeberl then the championship

cheers FG7

So? The Doeberl is Australia's #2 event. Of course I would rather win that than the ACT Championship. It's just an irrelevant point.

You propose a series of qualifying events for the Aus Champs. Any tournament qualification system would be just as flawed as the present system. They can't all be the Doeberl Cup, so name 20 events (including an appropriate geographical distribution) which should be qualifiers for the Australian Championships. Inevitably, the weaker of those events will qualify the odd weaker player. Then we have the same argument all over again.

pax
01-03-2005, 01:06 PM
Is this an arguement or an excuse? Moreover, it is a completely seperate arguement to anything Bill is producing.

It's got nothing to do with Bill or the rating system, as any geographically isolated rating pools will always have the potential to drift apart somewhat.

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 01:07 PM
You propose a series of qualifying events for the Aus Champs. Any tournament qualification system would be just as flawed as the present system. They can't all be the Doeberl Cup, so name 20 events (including an appropriate geographical distribution) which should be qualifiers for the Australian Championships. Inevitably, the weaker of those events will qualify the odd weaker player. Then we have the same argument all over again.
the category 3 gp events would be a good start ;)

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 01:17 PM
So? The Doeberl is Australia's #2 event. Of course I would rather win that than the ACT Championship. It's just an irrelevant point.



It is not irrelevent point at all. In fact it is a very important point. Which contributes more to the overall well being of Canberra chess, The championship or the Doeberl cup? Which has a higher reputation amongst chess players?
Which of these events has more quality? What would Canberra chess be like without the Doeberl Cup?

See I have argued this point before with Bonham. What is better for chess, rewarding one individual for a good performance in a mediocre tournament or having a quality tournament that brings in other talent to your event?

What is better for the ACF? Quality hard fought tournaments or mediocre state championships?

The point you may want to remember is that despite being the unofficial second best tournament on the calender (what about the aus open or masters?) it dosen't have any qualifying options. Yet which is harder to win?

Personally Doeberl is the best weekender in Australia, as such it ought to have more on offer, for the ACF, then other less popular events.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 01:19 PM
It's got nothing to do with Bill or the rating system, as any geographically isolated rating pools will always have the potential to drift apart somewhat.

Not that this has anything to do with what we are talking about. But, what is the conclusion of your premise?

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 01:27 PM
The point you may want to remember is that despite being the unofficial second best tournament on the calender (what about the aus open or masters?) it dosen't have any qualifying options. Yet which is harder to win? The masters isnt a qualifying option as it is only open to 12 players and also most if not all the players in the masters are already qualified.


Personally Doeberl is the best weekender in Australia, as such it ought to have more on offer, for the ACF, then other less popular events.

cheers Fg7
I dont think anyone would disagree that Doeberl has the best reputation as the number 1 weekender in Australia.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 01:40 PM
dear GG,

The masters isnt a qualifying option as it is only open to 12 players and also most if not all the players in the masters are already qualified.


I dont think anyone would disagree that Doeberl has the best reputation as the number 1 weekender in Australia.

Look at it like this mate. This is Australian chess. This is the ACFs product. This is how it all works based on their rules and regulations. Does it actually make any sense? How will the ACF help the Doeberl cup this year? Who is responsible for the running of the Australian Masters?

See a lot of people do a lot of work for Australian chess, but what are they propping up? How does the ACF encourage you, gg, to play chess?

Cheers Fg7

pax
01-03-2005, 01:44 PM
the category 3 gp events would be a good start ;)

Hmm. 6 in NSW, 2 in QLD, 2 in ACT, 1 in SA, 1 in Vic, none in WA (rough numbers based on the long out of date GP web page). I don't think FG7 will fancy that situation for him and his MCC mates. Not to mention the lack of representation for WA and Tas.

pax
01-03-2005, 02:02 PM
Hmm. 6 in NSW, 2 in QLD, 2 in ACT, 1 in SA, 1 in Vic, none in WA (rough numbers based on the long out of date GP web page). I don't think FG7 will fancy that situation for him and his MCC mates. Not to mention the lack of representation for WA and Tas.

Actually, it's more like 9 NSW events. And already Arthur Huynh (1791) qualifies along with one of FG7's favourite ACT players Michael Wei.

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 02:02 PM
Hmm. 6 in NSW, 2 in QLD, 2 in ACT, 1 in SA, 1 in Vic, none in WA (rough numbers based on the long out of date GP web page). I don't think FG7 will fancy that situation for him and his MCC mates. Not to mention the lack of representation for WA and Tas.
i think that would actually match fairly with the strength of the states, except for the 1 vic event. Maybe if gp 3 was to have more weight for qualification, then the vic clubs would be more encouraged to run gp events. Who knows, maybe even cv might run a weekender themselves :eek:

Just saw your second post, I dont think it should be based on one gp 3 event, but maybe a total collection of them. It is just a thought, but maybe the highest points scorer from gp 3 events who is not already qualified for the Australian Championships.

Ian Rout
01-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Hmm. 6 in NSW, 2 in QLD, 2 in ACT, 1 in SA, 1 in Vic, none in WA (rough numbers based on the long out of date GP web page). I don't think FG7 will fancy that situation for him and his MCC mates. Not to mention the lack of representation for WA and Tas.
Tournaments become category 3 by paying the entry fee. I recall they also have to meet some requirement as to the level of prizes which in turn theoretically pulls a better field, so is a better tournament.

The trouble with using something like the Doeberl is that it's always won by a player who will qualify; it is in fact too good. If you say that the top six (for instance) qualify then there's the risk someone can get a soft draw or a last round forfeit.

rob
01-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Jon,

As you are playing rated games again :) , you may wish to advise the NSW ratings officer that you are now a resident of NSW not WA so that you appear on the NSW list.

You may wish to also clear out some private messages if you want to receive any new ones :)

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 02:08 PM
Tournaments become category 3 by paying the entry fee. I recall they also have to meet some requirement as to the level of prizes which in turn theoretically pulls a better field, so is a better tournament.
yes, category of a gp tournament is determined by prize money offered, not to the strength of the players involved per se.

pax
01-03-2005, 02:08 PM
i think that would actually match fairly with the strength of the states, except for the 1 vic event. Maybe if gp 3 was to have more weight for qualification, then the vic clubs would be more encouraged to run gp events. Who knows, maybe even cv might run a weekender themselves :eek:

Just saw your second post, I dont think it should be based on one gp 3 event, but maybe a total collection of them. It is just a thought, but maybe the highest points scorer from gp 3 events who is not already qualified for the Australian Championships.

If you do that, you practically permanently prevent representation from states which don't have significant numbers of class III events (e.g WA). Not a good situation for a national championships.

pax
01-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Jon,

As you are playing rated games again :) , you may wish to advise the NSW ratings officer that you are now a resident of NSW not WA so that you appear on the NSW list.

You may wish to also clear out some private messages if you want to receive any new ones :)

You see I would have thought paying my NSW membership would have done the job, but obviously I'm wrong. Anyway, I'm still a sandgroper at heart.

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 02:15 PM
If you do that, you practically permanently prevent representation from states which don't have significant numbers or class III events (e.g WA). Not a good situation for a national championships.
actually, the following players are not far off the 2150 or automatically qualify regarding WA.

March 2005 list:


2197 !! 6 Boyd, Tristan
2158 ! 0 Byrne, Stewart J
2137 !! 0 Barber, Haydn J [FM]
2108 !! 16 Lakner, Jay
2105 !! 16 Hare, Tim
2103 ! 0 McCamon, Boyd
2068 ! 0 Haasse, Adam

pax
01-03-2005, 02:17 PM
actually, the following players are not far off the 2150 or automatically qualify regarding WA.


Sure, but aren't we (or FG7 rather) talking about replacing the current system with a series of qualifying tournaments?

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 02:18 PM
Actually, it's more like 9 NSW events.This year I think the only GP3 events are NSW Open, Ryde-Eastwood Open, Fairfield Summer and Winter Cups, Coffs Harbour Open, Port Macquarie PCYC.
Not sure about the Coal City Open.

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 02:36 PM
Sure, but aren't we (or FG7 rather) talking about replacing the current system with a series of qualifying tournaments?
i think fg7's beef is with players way under the 2150 cut off getting into the australian championships ie Narelle. I could be wrong, but that is how I have been reading it.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 06:50 PM
took response to firegoat's bad-tempered, silly and extremely poorly argued response to me from a few pages back direct to non-chess section.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 10:40 PM
Does anybody else suffer this sort of treatment from the Control Freak?

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 10:40 PM
How did people get to respond to posts in a non-linear fashion within this thread?

Garvinator
01-03-2005, 10:53 PM
How did people get to respond to posts in a non-linear fashion within this thread?
what are you talking about?

firegoat7
02-03-2005, 10:37 AM
GG,

I notice that sometimes people are able to seemingly post out of order. One minute I am following the thread then I come back a couple of hours later and notice that some new posts (originally not there) have been inserted in between other posts.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2005, 10:40 AM
GG,

I notice that sometimes people are able to seemingly post out of order. One minute I am following the thread then I come back a couple of hours later and notice that some new posts (originally not there) have been inserted in between other posts.I dont believe that is possible by users, other than maybe Admins and Mods.
However I have seen no such occurence.

Can you give a specific example.

Rincewind
02-03-2005, 10:52 AM
I notice that sometimes people are able to seemingly post out of order. One minute I am following the thread then I come back a couple of hours later and notice that some new posts (originally not there) have been inserted in between other posts.

You can set hybrid or threaded post ordering in your profile, which changes the order for you - but it doesn't look like you have that. Alternatively someone can post a message, delete it and undelete it at a later date.

Garvinator
02-03-2005, 10:57 AM
GG,

I notice that sometimes people are able to seemingly post out of order. One minute I am following the thread then I come back a couple of hours later and notice that some new posts (originally not there) have been inserted in between other posts.

cheers Fg7
i have actually noticed that this can occur. When I have gone back after a couple of days and re read part of a thread, there are new posts in there ie when someone has replied with quoting from earlier in the thread. Quite weird.

Without trying, I think i have even done this before.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2005, 11:05 AM
You can set hybrid or threaded post ordering in your profile, which changes the order for you - but it doesn't look like you have that. Alternatively someone can post a message, delete it and undelete it at a later date.Dont you mean by a someone that a mod can undelete it. I dont believe a normal user can undelete a post they have deleted.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2005, 11:07 AM
i have actually noticed that this can occur. When I have gone back after a couple of days and re read part of a thread, there are new posts in there ie when someone has replied with quoting from earlier in the thread. Quite weird.

Without trying, I think i have even done this before.You and I could both decide to reply to post #120 virtually at the same time.
You finish your reply and hit submit before me. When I finish my post and submit it my post appears after yours. If I dont check the thread I can totally miss your reply as it is now before my reply.

Rincewind
02-03-2005, 11:24 AM
Dont you mean by a someone that a mod can undelete it. I dont believe a normal user can undelete a post they have deleted.

That could be true. Not sure of the rules for deleted message for non-mods.