PDA

View Full Version : who killed the grand prix?



firegoat7
14-03-2005, 12:12 PM
Hello,

IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

So why has it died?

Well I think it died for two major reasons
1) Privatisation- User pays
2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.

However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

Anyway, this is all in the past.

IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

Cheers Fg7

eclectic
14-03-2005, 12:18 PM
Hello,

IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

So why has it died?

Well I think it died for two major reasons
1) Privatisation- User pays
2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.

However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

Anyway, this is all in the past.

IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

Cheers Fg7

hi fg7

the last time i posted something of note about revamping australian chess it was derisively shoved aside as "the australian chess wheel reinvented .. (or somesuch) by you know who ... :ponder:

so quite frankly i don't give a stuff !!

cheers

eclectic

Trent Parker
14-03-2005, 12:24 PM
Hello,

IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

So why has it died?

Well I think it died for two major reasons
1) Privatisation- User pays
2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.
Obviously ggray hasn't seen this thread yet..... Hey Firegoat the gp is still going. The gp co-ordinator is ggray.


However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

Hey Firegoat. I think the Grand Prix has only died in melbourne/victoria.... nowhere else.


Anyway, this is all in the past.

IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

Cheers Fg7

will do but don't have time At the moment.....

shaun
14-03-2005, 01:01 PM
Hello,

IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

So why has it died?

Well I think it died for two major reasons
1) Privatisation- User pays
2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
Only in that it required organisers to voluntarily participate, and if they didn't want to there was nothing the organisers could do


2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.

Untrue. Organisers recieved publicity both locally and nationally. Mercantile Mutual employed a public relations company to send out press releases both before and after the event to all media outlets in the country.


3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).

Untrue. Prize money was provided by sponsors. The money contributed by the tournaments went to funding other chess activities in Australia (eg The Mercantile Mutual Junior Development Fund)


4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.

Untrue. Mercatile Mutual provided over $10,000 per year in cash as well as > $30,000 a year in in kind support.


5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.

Untrue. Not only did the Grand Prix circuit pick up the existing major weekenders in Australia, it saw an explosion in the number of weekenders held throughout the country. (From about 8-10 to 35-40)


6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.

Untrue. See point 2.


7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

Untrue. They were part of a structure that put something back into the chess community, eg better financial returns for players.



One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.

I hadn't realised the ACF had killed it, so I guess the discussion at the next ACF meeting on next years GP format will be a brief one.
What caused problems for the GP wasn't the structure but the difficulty in obtaining continuing sponsorship for the series after Mercatile Mutual dropped out. And that various states retreated to the "What's in it for us" mindset and decided not to support the venture.



However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

Do you usually spout this much nonsense without doing prior research?



Anyway, this is all in the past.

Which you should learn about in the context of this debate.



IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.


Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?

"It's not dead, Jim"



I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

Cheers Fg7

arosar
14-03-2005, 01:31 PM
. . . by you know who ... :ponder:

By who?

Actually you surprised me eclectic. What's with the screaming? You're usually the calm one.

AR

Garvinator
14-03-2005, 01:51 PM
the grand prix is not dead. It is still running this year.

If it was dead, why are gp events mentioned in the acf bulletin each week :hmm:

Regarding organisers and some of their, what is in it for us, attitude. I do think this can be a fair attitude cause at the moment they are paying the gp fees out of the tournament income/expenditure.

Adding more to this, I think in cv there could be alot of extra interest and player participation if one of the clubs were to run a gp chess event later in the year because it would be one of the only cv gp events of the year. Here is a shocking thought, maybe cv could run a gp event themselves :eh:

There is only one event in vic this year, which is being held now.

Ian Rout
14-03-2005, 02:09 PM
I have to say that I was never very interested in the Grand Prix, though I did win a couple of prizes. I was only really concerned about tournaments individually and I can't name any Grand Prix winners.

Where a Grand Prix is bringing in sponsorship money recutting the cake makes it bigger, as described by Shaun, and there is some point to it. If it is just a redistribution of existing resources I don't see the point.

However if it is to continue it needs to be promoted and kept up to date so that people can get excited about it. I don't necessary see fg7's proposal of a super-GP as being better or worse but I agree ACF should either commit to or kill the GP.

pax
14-03-2005, 02:24 PM
Have the winners of the 2004 GP been officially announced?

firegoat7
14-03-2005, 03:57 PM
Hello Shaun,

Firstly, It is great that an experienced organiser is particpating in this debate.
I do agree with some of your criticism, however not all of it. So lets seperate the wheat from the chaff.


Only in that it required organisers to voluntarily participate, and if they didn't want to there was nothing the organisers could do

True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?

Your next statement is true aswell. In running a gp event, tournament organisers had to weigh up the benefits from the costs. Our club, one amongst many in Victoria who made the same decision, decided that we were not getting good value for money. We payed hundreds of dollars for something that had little impact on tournament numbers. There is a reason the gp circuit failed in Victoria. Reasons that are historically grounded.




Untrue. Organisers recieved publicity both locally and nationally. Mercantile Mutual employed a public relations company to send out press releases both before and after the event to all media outlets in the country.

I have been innacurate in my innitial statements, so I want to clarify what I mean by the gp circuit. I agree with you that when the gp circuit first appeared it was a great success. I think for 2-3 years it proved to be a great driver for Australian chess. The support by Mercantile and Mr Baker??( correct me if i am wrong) in providing this resource was immeasurable to Australian chess. However, IMO after about 3 years the gp circuit started faltering. The question we need to address is why? what happenend?

Well let me state this now.

The gp circuit we have now bares little resemblance to the one that first started the whole idea, nor does it have much in common with the period in between these two historical epochs. I agree Mercantile provided wonderful facilities, but what happenend when that dried up?



Untrue. Prize money was provided by sponsors. The money contributed by the tournaments went to funding other chess activities in Australia (eg The Mercantile Mutual Junior Development Fund)

Again when you say untrue, let us address the context of your concern.
Prize money was provided by sponsorship initially. It worked reasonably well then. But the key question is How did the ACF ensure that a sponsor was retained? Answer: they didn't. There idea failed because they (the ACF) had nothing to sell, nor could they develop new relationships with corporate Australia. When mercantile pulled the plug, so went the organising umbrella. See the ACF has a clear history of taking no responsibility for its product. It leaves all the good work in chess to states,clubs, private organisations and individuals.



Untrue. Mercatile Mutual provided over $10,000 per year in cash as well as > $30,000 a year in in kind support.

Look, you are right Shaun, we all know this. The point is where is the gp circuit now? Would you say its untrue that the ACF receives no sponsorship for its current gp circuit?



Untrue. Not only did the Grand Prix circuit pick up the existing major weekenders in Australia, it saw an explosion in the number of weekenders held throughout the country. (From about 8-10 to 35-40)
Again in one historical epoch it was successful. I agree. but did the ACF manage to capitalise on those good times? clearly the answer is no. Furthermore, the original idea of free market gp events has simply failed. Without protection of the gp circuit the ACF has been unable to maintain a stable product to attract sufficient potential sponsorship.




Untrue. They were part of a structure that put something back into the chess community, eg better financial returns for players.

This relates to what you said before about "it funded junior chess". While it may be true, that in a certain period of time there were some benefits for the chess community- the questions remain. 1)Where is it now? 2) Was this an appropriate use of ACF resources?

Now, I am not going to criticise anybody in Australian chess for giving it a go, but did the outcomes measure up? IMO no. Let us examine the facts.

The gp is virtually dead in Victoria- arguable the second biggest state in the country and a place where a sizeable elite of the Australian chess scene is located.

The gp circuits staus has diminished within Australian playing circles.

Funds were taken from the gp circuit, for the ACF, despite it not being clear that its cash cow was able to milked. (You may want to consider why a gp circuit funded a junior development program? or why cash incentives were the only guiding principles for player reward instead of staus or honor)





I hadn't realised the ACF had killed it, so I guess the discussion at the next ACF meeting on next years GP format will be a brief one.
What caused problems for the GP wasn't the structure but the difficulty in obtaining continuing sponsorship for the series after Mercatile Mutual dropped out. And that various states retreated to the "What's in it for us" mindset and decided not to support the venture.

If the gp circuit is not dead then , in its current form, it has a terminal disease. It may aswell be dead for Victorians, Tasmanians and Western Australians, so any aspirations to a national circuit are a farce.

While I do agree that the Mercantile dropping was a significant factor, it is not the overriding concern. It was not up to the states or the clubs to pick up the void left behind by the loss of sponsorship. That void needed to be addressed by the ACF, since it was their product.

Some clubs and states continued to support the gp circuit, for a while, after the loss of sponsorship, they soon realised that it was not really economically feasible. Now I suggested that the whole of the gp idea needs to be revamped. You may claim that my statements are "untrue" but if you look at the current gp circuit I would say that they were "correct".



Do you usually spout this much nonsense without doing prior research?
Which you should learn about in the context of this debate.
"It's not dead, Jim" I apologise for any confusion about historical understandings of the gp event, but......
Take the blinkers of and look at the horse. Does it look rideable to you? Would you place a bet on this form? Do you think its a sprinter or a stayer?

cheers Fg7
P.S maybe the ACF ought to consider why it spends so much of its human resources upon selecting an olympiad team, instead of a product that it has the capacity to grow.

shaun
14-03-2005, 04:08 PM
True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?

Untrue. As the GP organiser one of my responsibilities was to not only avoid direct clashes of events, but also to make sure events were not too close to each other (eg a 3 week gap between Geelong, ANU and Albury)



I have been innacurate in my innitial statements, so I want to clarify what I mean by the gp circuit. I agree with you that when the gp circuit first appeared it was a great success. I think for 2-3 years it proved to be a great driver for Australian chess. The support by Mercantile and Mr Baker??( correct me if i am wrong) in providing this resource was immeasurable to Australian chess. However, IMO after about 3 years the gp circuit started faltering. The question we need to address is why? what happenend?


You needed to state this at the outset. Basically you said that the Grand Prix was designed to fail, which I have clearly demonstrated it was not. Given that your arguments were presented with a false/confusing premise my suggestion would be to go back to your initial post, change it in the light of what you know now, and have another go at asking questions. Because as it is now I cannot answer the questions you ask in a clear manner.

Lucena
15-03-2005, 09:34 AM
Have the winners of the 2004 GP been officially announced?

In a word, no. Garvin has posted details(not sure if they're final) of the Open division but I believe he's still working on the other divisions.

Garvinator
15-03-2005, 11:40 AM
In a word, no. Garvin has posted details(not sure if they're final) of the Open division but I believe he's still working on the other divisions.
to answer both pax and Gareth, Gareth is correct. I am snowed under at the moment and getting things done as quick as I can. I apologise for not having them done for 2004.

pax
15-03-2005, 11:50 AM
to answer both pax and Gareth, Gareth is correct. I am snowed under at the moment and getting things done as quick as I can. I apologise for not having them done for 2004.

I don't know where the fault lies (I'm not accusing Garvin specifically), but that's a pretty poor state of affairs. The trouble is that once we are well into 2005, people have lost interest in the 2004 GP (if they had any to start with).

The ideal situation is for all of the results to be up to date prior to the final event, meaning the final results can be announced at the conclusion of that event (and also so that contenders for prizes know what is required before they enter that final event). This has been achieved most years.

pax
15-03-2005, 12:02 PM
True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?

Australia is a big place. There's no reason not to have simultaneous events in different states. It would be insane for organisers in WA to be told they can't have an event on a particular weekend because of a clash with an event in QLD for example.

IMO the only requirement might be that events of "national standing" (that is, events that a number of top players might travel interstate for) not be scheduled together. For example, you might count the class III GPs in this category. Since organisers will generally avoid such clashes by themselves (and the GP coordinator work to schedule with the miminum conflict), there probably isn't a need for a specific rule to govern it.

Clashes should also be avoided within states as much as possible, but again it's in organisers interests to avoid clashes, and the State Associations usually ensure such clashes are avoided (Victoria excepted in it's unique way).

For example I don't regard SEC/Doeberl to be a problem at all, since few (if any) players would travel interstate for SEC and the top NSW players generally all go to Doeberl unless prevented for other reasons.

Garvinator
15-03-2005, 12:03 PM
I don't know where the fault lies (I'm not accusing Garvin specifically), but that's a pretty poor state of affairs. The trouble is that once we are well into 2005, people have lost interest in the 2004 GP (if they had any to start with).

The ideal situation is for all of the results to be up to date prior to the final event, meaning the final results can be announced at the conclusion of that event (and also so that contenders for prizes know what is required before they enter that final event). This has been achieved most years.
your right that results should be done on time. No disagreement, but I only took over in about october and have had many problems as is known to the acf council. All i can say now is that I am doing the best I can to catch up for 2004.

2005 will not be this way and will be on time, barring unforeseen circumstances :hmm:

Garvinator
15-03-2005, 12:05 PM
(and the GP coordinator work to schedule with the miminum conflict),
this is very much incorrect. The decisions about what tournaments are allowed onto the gp calendar, scheduling etc is the decision of the acf council, not the gp coordinator.

I can make recommendations, but nothing I say goes. Basically the title should be changed from gp coordinator to gp points collator.

Paul S
15-03-2005, 01:24 PM
I have to say that I was never very interested in the Grand Prix, though I did win a couple of prizes. I was only really concerned about tournaments individually and I can't name any Grand Prix winners.

Where a Grand Prix is bringing in sponsorship money recutting the cake makes it bigger, as described by Shaun, and there is some point to it. If it is just a redistribution of existing resources I don't see the point.

However if it is to continue it needs to be promoted and kept up to date so that people can get excited about it. I don't necessary see fg7's proposal of a super-GP as being better or worse but I agree ACF should either commit to or kill the GP.

Pretty close to my thoughts as well.

Good points made by Ian.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

IMHO (for reasons mentioned previously in other threads), I think its time to get rid of the GP.

Paul S
15-03-2005, 01:33 PM
............................, but I only took over in about october ..............................

Hi Garvin

I had thought it was more like June/July 2004 rather than October 2004 when you officially took over the running of the GP. (BTW, I recall you became the assistant GP co-ordinator in about February 2004 and with Bob Keast having to leave due to work commitments in April it would appear that you were effectively the GP co-ordinator from April 2004 onwards).

At any rate, there is a mention in ACF Newsletter #276 of August 4, 2004 that you had been recently officially appointed GP co-ordinator (taking over from Bob Keast).

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 01:55 PM
the last time i posted something of note about revamping australian chess it was derisively shoved aside as "the australian chess wheel reinvented .. (or somesuch) by you know who ... :ponder:

That was me and the thread is here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=362). Your ideas were extremely impractical and poorly thought out and got the kind of flak that they deserved. It is not comparable to this thread. As usual firegoat's claims are riddled with factual errors (some of which he has acknowledged) and expressed with his usual lashings of pointless abuse of political language, but he is basically correct that the GP is really struggling at present. His solution is probably one of many viable options.

As for the lack of GP events in Victoria, mentioned by firegoat, it is worth noting that other states like NSW continued to support the GP while Victorian organisers, with few exceptions, have not been doing so. The GP is not simply about redistribution, it is about providing players with incentives to enter more tournaments, and can acheive that goal even as a zero-sum game given sufficient goodwill and, more importantly, good organisation. However that goodwill depends on organisers as well.

My preference is for a sponsored GP because it is so much easier to run. Watch this space in 2006 (*fingers crossed*).

pax
15-03-2005, 02:13 PM
your right that results should be done on time. No disagreement, but I only took over in about october and have had many problems as is known to the acf council. All i can say now is that I am doing the best I can to catch up for 2004.

Yes, last year had some extenuating circumstances to be sure.

pax
15-03-2005, 02:15 PM
this is very much incorrect. The decisions about what tournaments are allowed onto the gp calendar, scheduling etc is the decision of the acf council, not the gp coordinator.

I can make recommendations, but nothing I say goes. Basically the title should be changed from gp coordinator to gp points collator.

I never suggested that you had any more influence than advice (and, prehaps persuasion). However you are the person who recieves information about prospective tournaments, and can at least inform organisers of conflicts (that they may or may not be aware of).

shaun
15-03-2005, 02:38 PM
As for the lack of GP events in Victoria, mentioned by firegoat, it is worth noting that other states like NSW continued to support the GP while Victorian organisers, with few exceptions, have not been doing so. The GP is not simply about redistribution, it is about providing players with incentives to enter more tournaments, and can acheive that goal even as a zero-sum game given sufficient goodwill and, more importantly, good organisation. However that goodwill depends on organisers as well.


This observation is the historically correct one.
When I was planning the GP one of my motivations was simply about bringing more money into the game. At this stage (1988) there were few sponsorship dollars and therefore any extra money had to come from the players themselves. However the chess community (then and now) had shown themselves to be remarkably tight, and so a different mechanism was required to increase the flow of dollars.
It is important to note that in the first year of the Grand Prix (1989) there was no sponsorship, and money out == money in. Indeed it wasn't an official ACF event, as when I pitched it to the ACF towards the end of 1988 they said it was a terrific idea, wished me all the best, but said it had nothing to do with them.
It was only when Mercantile Mutual (through the efforts of Ian Rogers) were looking for chess projects to support, that things changed. Again it is important to realise that Mercatile Mutual put their money into existing programs, rather than contacting the ACF and having to wait until the ACF came up with something.
Therefore if the attitude concerning the "shuffling of money" was prevalant at the time, there probably would have been no GP or Mercantile Mutual sponsorship money at all.

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 05:16 PM
As for the lack of GP events in Victoria, mentioned by firegoat, it is worth noting that other states like NSW continued to support the GP while Victorian organisers, with few exceptions, have not been doing so. The GP is not simply about redistribution, it is about providing players with incentives to enter more tournaments, and can acheive that goal even as a zero-sum game given sufficient goodwill and, more importantly, good organisation. However that goodwill depends on organisers as well.





This observation is the historically correct one.
This is nonsense, both of you need to engage with Victorian chess before you cast such aspersions upon Victorian tournament organisers.

As has been said a million times before on different threads The state structures in Victoria are different to other states . Bonham suggests that Victorian organisers did not support the grand prix. He then wades in with the pathetic arguementative comparison that N.S.W did, so it must be the organiser fault.

What a goose.

Clearly Victoria and N.S.W tournament chess have little in common. While they may both be states, their fees for tournaments are completely different. The term "state" is similar only in name. Frankly, Im surprised that Shaun then suggests that "this is the historically correct' version of events. In fact, it has no causal connection. Well no causal connection in that -It is the organisers fault they did not not support the gp. Let me spell it out for you- Club organisers in Victorian chess are financially the best in Australia. They are experienced and know how to prevent disastrous financial losses that are of little or no benefit to the Victorian chess community at large.

If anyone is responsible for destroying the gp in Victoria its the ACF and ChessVictoria who, quite simply, tax Victorian chessplayers more then any other state. That the clubs, collect and then pay this fee, as a tournament cost before an event is held, might be more of a justifiable reason as to why Victorian tournament organisers are reluctant to commit to hefty grand prix payements.

But we regress, so lets get back to the issues,



My preference is for a sponsored GP because it is so much easier to run. Watch this space in 2006 (*fingers crossed*).

This is great news if it happens. I do believe however, that the gp organisers should change the structure. IMO they should nominate most of this prizemoney for 10-12 specific open events spread out across Australia.

Each tournament should be matched by guarantees from the organisers holding those events, so that all prizes would be guaranteed with money in the bank before the events. Organisers ought to be allowed to claim legitimate costs and agreed management fees for running these events, should the tournament run at a profit. The numbers should be clearly worked out and agreed upon with all organisers before any play begins. The ACF should have a fair and reasonable policy, so that if a tournament runs at a loss, there is standard, uniform and transparent process across the board.

Players ought to be rewarded with qualifying spots to either World, National or State Championships. I for example would much rather see the winner of the GP receiving a ticket to Linares or Wijk an Zee, instead of cash. An overall junior winner should recieve tickets to world juniors etc. U1600 an automatic state entry spot etc. Don't give them cash. Only give them tournament prizemoney.

The gp ought to be an ACF product in conjunction with organisers, not the other way round. The market for this product should be small (ie tournament numbers) and selective so that all energy can be focussed on a positive outcome.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2005, 05:57 PM
If anyone is responsible for destroying the gp in Victoria its the ACF and ChessVictoria who, quite simply, tax Victorian chessplayers more then any other state.To use your phraseology, this is complete nonsense.
NSW has always paid far more in fees to the ACF than Victoria. We (NSW) paid more under the quota system and we pay more under the ACF admin fee and Schools Levy than CV.

However I'm sure you will argue you used the words "tax" and that is really all you meant.
Well even in that case what you say is wrong as the ACF never taxed chessplayers whilst the quota system was in use. Even now with the ACF admin fee based on rated games (it is like a tax), the fee per game is the same for all the states and NSW pays far more than CV.

Even when it comes to comes to GP fees NSW also paid more in GP fees than Victoria.

Also you should not lump the ACF and CV into the one group regarding this. The ACF has no control over what fees CV may decide to charge over and above the ACF GP fees with regards GP events either now or in the past.

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 06:41 PM
To use your phraseology, this is complete nonsense.
NSW has always paid far more in fees to the ACF than Victoria. We (NSW) paid more under the quota system and we pay more under the ACF admin fee and Schools Levy than CV.

This point is irrelevent. We are not talking about how much state administrations pay to the ACF. In case you don't realise it ChessVictoria does not organise any gp tournaments in Victoria, the clubs do. So stop talking nonsense.




However I'm sure you will argue you used the words "tax" and that is really all you meant.
Well even in that case what you say is wrong as the ACF never taxed chessplayers whilst the quota system was in use. Even now with the ACF admin fee based on rated games (it is like a tax), the fee per game is the same for all the states and NSW pays far more than CV.


Again irrelevent nonsense. We are not talking about the same thing. Why don't you start a new thread called ACF/State fees, since what you are saying has no relevence to the Victorian position on gp events.





Even when it comes to comes to GP fees NSW also paid more in GP fees than Victoria.

Interesting. So what is the price for a gp event in N.S.W compared to Victoria? This better be what your talking about because anything else is irrelevent nonsense.




Also you should not lump the ACF and CV into the one group regarding this. The ACF has no control over what fees CV may decide to charge over and above the ACF GP fees with regards GP events either now or in the past.

Well I would like to seperate the entities, but unfortunately, in regards to Victoria, they are often connected. See to run an event in Victoria like , lets say, the Victorian open, you have to bid for that event. Sometimes ChessVictoria chooses to pay for the gp fess sometimes it doesn't . It all depends on ....you know... well let us say...how well you get on with ChessVictoria. Now clearly this is not the best way to run events in Victoria, but it ought to be recognised by the ACF that these sort of practises do occur in Victorian chess. Furthermore if the ACF wants clubs to run gp events in Victoria, then a much fairer system then the one that is current Victorian chess practise ought to operate.

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
15-03-2005, 06:54 PM
Interesting. So what is the price for a gp event in N.S.W compared to Victoria? This better be what your talking about because anything else is irrelevent nonsense.
i cant answer how much each state charges the tournament organisers/clubs to run gp events, but the Gp fees according to the ACF Grand Prix By Laws that I have at the moment are:

Tournament registration fees
7. (1) The organisers of a registered tournament are to pay to the Co-ordinator a prescibed fee for registration of the tournament.

(2) The prescribed fees are –

(a) A base fee depending on the class of tournament –

(i) Class 1 – $50.00;

(ii) Class 2 – $100.00;

(iii) Class 3 – $150.00

(b) an additional fee of $2.00 per player participating in the tournament.

(3) The total fees payable for a tournament are not to exceed $500.00.

(4) The fee payable for a tournament played –

(a) outside a State capital city; or

(b) in Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia or the Northern Territory

is to be $50.00 less than the total of the fees prescibed in paragraph (2).

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2005, 07:01 PM
This point is irrelevent. We are not talking about how much state administrations pay to the ACF. In case you don't realise it ChessVictoria does not organise any gp tournaments in Victoria, the clubs do. So stop talking nonsense.It isnt nonsense. You did not qualify your statement when you used the word tax to just refer to gp related fees.

Its only because CV choose not to run GP events.
Even so there is nothing stopping clubs in Victoria choosing to run their weekenders as GP events.
There are a number of events not run by the NSWCA in NSW that are run by clubs but are still GP events, like the Fairfield tournaments, the Laurieton Tournaments and the Coffs Harbour tournament to name a few.


Again irrelevent nonsense. We are not talking about the same thing. Why don't you start a new thread called ACF/State fees, since what you are saying has no relevence to the Victorian position on gp events.Rubbish.
You did not qualify your statement when you used the word tax to just refer to gp related fees.


Interesting. So what is the price for a gp event in N.S.W compared to Victoria?The same as it is for any other state as the GP fees are charged directly by the ACF and not the state Associations.


This better be what your talking about because anything else is irrelevent nonsense.I could argue that most of what you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.


Well I would like to seperate the entities, but unfortunately, in regards to Victoria, they are often connected. See to run an event in Victoria like , lets say, the Victorian open, you have to bid for that event.Exactly, in Victoria you have to bid for it. As such CV could require the bidders to include the events as GP events.


Sometimes ChessVictoria chooses to pay for the gp fess sometimes it doesn't . It all depends on ....you know... well let us say...how well you get on with ChessVictoria.It has nothing to do with CV.
There is nothing stopping a club paying the GP fee and having its weekender included in the GP.


Now clearly this is not the best way to run events in Victoria, but it ought to be recognised by the ACF that these sort of practises do occur in Victorian chess.A club doesnt need to pay CV for an event to be in the GP is there?
As such therefore there is nothing to stop a club including its weekender in the GP.


Furthermore if the ACF wants clubs to run gp events in Victoria, then a much fairer system then the one that is current Victorian chess practise ought to operate.What issuses exactly.

What exactly is stopping a club paying the ACF for their event to be a GP event. A number of clubs in NSW do that.

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2005, 07:03 PM
i cant answer how much each state charges the tournament organisers/clubs to run gp events.The NSWCA charges no fee to any NSW club/organiser who wishes to run a GP event.

Denis_Jessop
15-03-2005, 09:32 PM
The NSWCA charges no fee to any NSW club/organiser who wishes to run a GP event.

Nor does the ACTCA. Moreover I cannot see how a State Association could reasonably charge such a fee.

On a point previously mentioned by Bill, there are 3 ACT events that could reasonably be regarded as possible GP events and all 3 are such. Until last year only 1 of these - the Doeberl Cup - was an ACTCA event. Now the ACTCA is taking over the ANU Open organisation but the 3rd - the Vikings Weekender - remains a club event.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2005, 09:59 PM
In checking the events in the 1995 GP from the list in the ACF administrative handbook of that year the GP events per state were as follows:
NSW - 10
QLD - 9
WA - 7
VIC - 5
ACT - 3
SA - 2
TAS - 2

Now compared to population VIC was down even then.
Its GP events were : Begonia Open, Vic Open, Geelong Open, Best in the West, VCA Xmas Swiss.

Garvinator
15-03-2005, 10:23 PM
Vic Open
Id be interested to know why the vic open has disappeared off the gp calendar since it is still run and I did make an offer to add it last year?

ursogr8
16-03-2005, 06:58 AM
Id be interested to know why the vic open has disappeared off the gp calendar since it is still run and I did make an offer to add it last year?

gg''

My guess is that when the motion to include/not_include, came up at the first planning meeting, the motion was lost. You will recall the timing of the meeting because it was just before Dorophil burst onto the scene (here) with some memorable remarks.


starter

shaun
16-03-2005, 09:12 AM
This is nonsense, both of you need to engage with Victorian chess before you cast such aspersions upon Victorian tournament organisers.


Now it is my turn not be completely clear. When I reffered to Kevin's observations being "historically correct" I didn't mean the issues involving the lack of Victorian events, but to the following remarks countering the "what's in it for us" remarks from yourself, Sike and Rout. I should have trimmed Kevin's quote more accurately.

Paul S
17-03-2005, 12:33 AM
............................, but to the following remarks countering the "what's in it for us" remarks from yourself, Sike and Rout........................

Hi Shaun

You are mistaken in assuming that my comments regarding the GP are due to "what's in it for me", as I rarely play in Weekenders (BTW, probably the only weekender I will play in 2005 is the Doeberl, and if I took the attitude of "whats in it for me financially" I would not be there - even if I were to win the Minor first prize of $600 this year, this would not even cover my airfare and hotel accommodation costs!).

My opposition to the GP has nothing to do with "what's in it for me" financially. Rather my opposition to the GP is largely based on the fact that the GP has been a shemozzle for the last 2 years and should be put out of its misery. There is no point in flogging a dead horse! The "good old days" of when the GP was well run by the likes of yourself, Jason Lyons and Norm Braybrooke are long gone! I was quite happy for there to be a GP when it was well run. Sadly, the GP is now an embarrassment to Australian chess and has been for the last two years (eg last GP website update was on 27/2/04 - over one year ago!!!).

IMHO to be viable, the GP needs sponsorship (at present it is merely redistributing existing prizemoney in another form and so does not add any overall value to chessplayers or Australian chess). However, what private company would want to sponsor the GP after the shemozzle of the last 2 years?

Personally I think it would be better for the Doeberl if it was not part of the GP and had a prize fund of $10,500 (instead of $10,000 and wasting $500 on GP fees), although we will have to "agree to disagree" on this.

Anyway, this morning I posted off my Doeberl entry fee to your good friend Paul Dunn, so its "all systems go" (although I still have to finalise my hotel accommodation at the Forrest Motor Inn). I am looking forward to it - you Canberrans know how to run a decent chess tournament - I am more than happy to spend a bit of money to travel to a large well run comp like Doeberl!

Best wishes in your role as Chief Arbiter this year (and I am sure you will do a good job). Will there be more "ssshhhh, ssshhhh" or less as a result of this? ;) :lol:

Thunderspirit
17-03-2005, 07:41 PM
I got to be honest I haven't read the thread (which is bad), but here are my thoughts on the GP.

The GP should be an important part of Australian chess. It encourages players of all strengths to play in weekend events, and promote chess around the nation. Organisers always like to see players who have made an effort to travel to their events, this itself is a small reward for the work they have done.

It also serves as a target for improving players in both the U1600 and U2000 sections. If you're keen to try and win some thing, you'll work hard and play as often as you can.

During 2001 I played as many GP events as possibile on my quest to win the U1600 GP. Part of this included playing 11 weekenders in 12 weeks! I travelled as far north as the Gold Coast and as far south as Melbourne, and everywhere in between. It was a really fun time, I was the most active player on the list with 90 games. So it was important to me, big deal.

I was havinga discussion with one of Australia's titled players (who shall remain nameless) who was not happy that any event can be a cateorgy one weekender. He commented that all you needed was $50 1st prize and as long as you paid the fee to the ACF and that it! He said it devalued the points for the GP enitre.

While this has some points I was a little grumpy with that position. Not all tournaments are designed for all players. I said to him, "I may want to play the Australian masters, but I don't think the organisers would agree." Quite clearly (in my case) The Oz masters is not for me. (Sigh...)

So what do you do... get rid of category one, and make the mininum the standard for Cat 2? The results would be a GP similar to NZ where there are few tournaments, but they are always strong and with good money etc.

But happens to the little organisers it Australia's regional areas. Tournaments such as Dubbo, New Castle, Laureton in NSW. Tuggeranong in Canberra, The Tassie Open and countless others. Using my memory from 2001, there were 42 events that year. 21 were cat 1 events, so it's a big slice of the pie.

For everyone living in a big city (especially Sydney) if you have never been to a regional event you should if only once. You'll have a good time, make an organiser happy, as well as help the economy as well.

If Lauerton can attract IM Wallace and IM West (in seperate events) for the weekend with $150 first prize, than the average mortal can go as well.

I enjoyed playing Guy, (I got duely cracked!) but I appricate the fact he played.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 10:25 PM
I can tell even before reading it that I will get another over-the-top rant full of misunderstandings of my comments and firegoat picking fights with me for personal reasons.


As has been said a million times before on different threads The state structures in Victoria are different to other states . Bonham suggests that Victorian organisers did not support the grand prix. He then wades in with the pathetic arguementative comparison that N.S.W did, so it must be the organiser fault.

I did not say it was solely the organisers' fault - just that organiser goodwill is one part of making the GP work as a zero-sum game.

There may have been a vicious cycle at work - Victoria had less GP events so less Vic players could win GP prizes so less Vic players cared about the GP so less organisers entered their events so Victoria had less GP events (etc). That kind of regional impact is one of the dangers of a zero-sum system - but not if organisers all aim to support the system even if this involves some costs.


Clearly Victoria and N.S.W tournament chess have little in common. While they may both be states, their fees for tournaments are completely different.

Irrelevant because the fees for running a GP event are no different from state to state, and because no matter what kind of value the prizemoney distribution (without GP status) represents, the addition of zero-sum GP status should not affect that. Players are still rewarded more if they play more tournaments.

What you seem not to appreciate is that the Grand Prix is just another way of redistributing entry fees as prizes. Except that instead of being distributed immediately based on performance that weekend, it is distributed later based on consistent and active performance. Hopefully even those chessplayers who are not so active can still see the benefits of encouraging others to play more tournaments.


Let me spell it out for you- Club organisers in Victorian chess are financially the best in Australia. They are experienced and know how to prevent disastrous financial losses that are of little or no benefit to the Victorian chess community at large.

I would regard being unreasonably tight about the budget rather than just increasing entry fees very slightly to cover the GP costs and offsetting this by advertising the event's GP status as a perfect example of the lack of goodwill I referred to. Thankyou for proving my point. How many entrants do you really think a $3-4 increase in entry fee offset by GP status would deter? My guess is approximately none at all.


If anyone is responsible for destroying the gp in Victoria its the ACF and ChessVictoria who, quite simply, tax Victorian chessplayers more then any other state. That the clubs, collect and then pay this fee, as a tournament cost before an event is held, might be more of a justifiable reason as to why Victorian tournament organisers are reluctant to commit to hefty grand prix payements.

Hefty? Less than $5 per player is not that big a deal if it is taken into account from the start.

Lucena
17-03-2005, 11:37 PM
the GP has been a shemozzle for the last 2 years
after the shemozzle of the last 2 years


Paul, Greg has let me know there will be a large and heavy thesaurus awaiting you at the Doeberl...

firegoat7
18-03-2005, 12:04 AM
I can tell even before reading it that I will get another over-the-top rant full of misunderstandings of my comments and firegoat picking fights with me for personal reasons.

Do you want me to engage with the issues you have mentioned or would you prefer them to pass through to the keeper without a shot offered?

Ian Rout
18-03-2005, 10:54 AM
the fees for running a GP event are no different from state to state
This doesn't appear to be quite right since according to ggray's table tournaments in capital cities (apart from half of them) pay $50 more.

As I understand it Canberra is a capital for the purpose of this rule (it's normal business practice to deem Canberra a "capital" or not depending which definition allows you to charge more and/or provide lesser service), which is a bit of an anomaly considering that Perth and Adelaide which get a discount have about three or four times the population. Admittedly Canberra has access to Sydney players, but Newcastle, Canberra and Gold Coast have similar populations and are more geographically advantaged.

My first thought was that the purpose of the base fee rather than a flat per capita fee or sliding scale was to dissuade people from setting up the West Woop Woop Open with three players and scoring GP points, but since country venues are the ones that get the discount this is obviously not the case.

Libby
18-03-2005, 11:04 AM
Paul, Greg has let me know there will be a large and heavy thesaurus awaiting you at the Doeberl...

I was going to say a dictionary as well but it turns out this is a legitimate variation of my preferred spelling of "schemozzle" ;)

Rhubarb
18-03-2005, 04:46 PM
Paul, Greg has let me know there will be a large and heavy thesaurus awaiting you at the Doeberl...now now, gbc, you know i don't practise violence, so i hereby pass the thesaurus to you. do your worst. :P

p.s. Libby your version is most correct but least used.

Garvinator
18-03-2005, 04:58 PM
now now, gbc, you know i don't advocate violence, so i hereby pass the thesaurus to you. do your worst. :P

p.s. Libby your version is most correct but least used.
gbc didnt actually say what you were/are going to do with the mentioned thesaurus ;)

Libby
18-03-2005, 06:24 PM
p.s. Libby your version is most correct but least used.

I thought so, particularly given the origins but I dragged out the dictionary to check. Bit of a stickler on these things ...

Lucena
18-03-2005, 06:41 PM
gbc didnt actually say what you were/are going to do with the mentioned thesaurus ;)

Hopefully not the same thing as Bill's recommendation about the vibrating phone...

Denis_Jessop
18-03-2005, 08:29 PM
It looks as though the schmuck has been a complete schlemiel for creating such a shemozzle and if he keeps it up he'll be a regular schleppy schlimazel. :owned:

DJ

firegoat7
19-03-2005, 02:01 AM
Well spoken Pres :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2005, 02:35 AM
This doesn't appear to be quite right since according to ggray's table tournaments in capital cities (apart from half of them) pay $50 more.

You are quite correct. In the context of typical NSW vs typical Victorian tournaments there is no difference - I remembered about the $50 later and had to amend the "$2 per player" to "$3-4 per player" on account of it but forgot to clarify the other comment in question.


My first thought was that the purpose of the base fee rather than a flat per capita fee or sliding scale was to dissuade people from setting up the West Woop Woop Open with three players and scoring GP points, but since country venues are the ones that get the discount this is obviously not the case.

I remember when it was brought in and the reason was to encourage smaller areas to host tournaments that might otherwise get crippled by the extra fee. I was one of those responsible as at the time some of our events were only attracting 15 players and that was one of the things I said would make us more likely to enter our events. The other was cutting back from top seven events counting to top five.


Do you want me to engage with the issues you have mentioned or would you prefer them to pass through to the keeper without a shot offered?

I am happy for you to engage with the issues but I suggest that in taking your online grudge way too seriously, you are responding to claims made by me in a way you would not if they were made by someone you got on fine with. This is certainly not strengthening your case.

firegoat7
19-03-2005, 03:46 PM
I am happy for you to engage with the issues but I suggest that in taking your online grudge way too seriously, you are responding to claims made by me in a way you would not if they were made by someone you got on fine with. This is certainly not strengthening your case.

I am curious 1) Did you believe my last post was a grudge comment? 2) Does anyone else believe my last comment was a grudge comment?

Cheers Fg7

HappyFriend
10-04-2005, 10:03 PM
Stop your amatuer intellectualising! The Grand Prix was ruined by extremely bad publicity when some thug attacked Alexander Gaft at a Grand Prix tournament. Is there any truth that this thug is on the Melbourne Chess Club committee?

Lucena
10-04-2005, 11:14 PM
Stop your amatuer intellectualising! The Grand Prix was ruined by extremely bad publicity when some thug attacked Alexander Gaft at a Grand Prix tournament. Is there any truth that this thug is on the Melbourne Chess Club committee?

Sorry mate, but that's a pretty weak trolling attempt... :hand:

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 04:22 PM
I have some questions...

1/ Was the Doeberl Minor a GP event?

2/ How are the results of the Doeberl Major treated for players U1600? Is the Major considered a separate tourn where the top u1600 player in the Major receives maximum points?

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 04:26 PM
I have some questions...

1/ Was the Doeberl Minor a GP event? yes it was.


2/ How are the results of the Doeberl Major treated for players U1600? Is the Major considered a separate tourn where the top u1600 player in the Major receives maximum points?
when tournaments are run in separate divisions that match the gp divisions, the points are tallied with respect to those divisions only.

For players who have played in a division higher than their rating suggests, they are awarded points in the division they played only.

This means that a person who is say 1550 and played in the major cannot receive any points for the u1600 section.

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 07:45 PM
yes it was.


when tournaments are run in separate divisions that match the gp divisions, the points are tallied with respect to those divisions only.

For players who have played in a division higher than their rating suggests, they are awarded points in the division they played only.

This means that a person who is say 1550 and played in the major cannot receive any points for the u1600 section.

But now a conundrum.. when my rating surely passes 1600, I will be unable to play in the U1600 tourns for Gold Coast Open and Adelaide Uni Open. Are you saying my scores just 'won't count' and I can't do anything about it? If so, that's a massive flaw...

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 10:37 PM
What, no one has any comment on this? I finally raise some controversy and everyone goes strangely quiet? :hmm:

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 10:41 PM
But now a conundrum.. when my rating surely passes 1600, I will be unable to play in the U1600 tourns for Gold Coast Open and Adelaide Uni Open. Are you saying my scores just 'won't count' and I can't do anything about it? If so, that's a massive flaw...
no controversy or flaws at all. Your rating that is used for 2005 gp is your rating on the December 2004 Rating master list.

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 10:55 PM
no controversy or flaws at all. Your rating that is used for 2005 gp is your rating on the December 2004 Rating master list.

Yes. Which was below 1600. However, when I enter tournaments this year, I will be prohibited from playing in U1600 divisions. Hence, according to your rules on the Doeberl Major, it will be impossible for me to get any Grand Prix points from playing GC Open and Uni Open Premier divisions. Hence, I am at a major disadvantage.

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 10:57 PM
Yes. Which was below 1600. However, when I enter tournaments this year, I will be prohibited from playing in U1600 divisions. Hence, according to your rules on the Doeberl Major, it will be impossible for me to get any Grand Prix points from playing GC Open and Uni Open Premier divisions. Hence, I am at a major disadvantage.
complain to your state delegate ;)

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 10:59 PM
complain to your state delegate ;)

:rolleyes:

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 11:05 PM
:rolleyes:I just had a look at the Grand Prix By Laws and I cant see anything that is in your favour with the current laws.

This is the section on allocation of points:

Allocation of points
13. (1) Points are to be allocated to players depending on the position in which they finish in a Grand Prix tournament of a particular class in accordance with the following table.

The Table

Position Class1 Class 2 Class 3
1st 12 16 20
2nd 9 12 15
3rd 6 9 12
4th 4 6 9
5th 3 4 6

(2) If a tournament is played in divisions corresponding to the Grand Prix prize divisions, points will be awarded in those divisions

(3) For junior, women’s and unrated categories, points will be awarded starting with the Open division and cascading down through U2000 and U1600 until 1st to 5th points have been allocated.

(4) In Open tournaments points will be awarded from 1st down with players eligible to gain points in more than one division if they meet the relevant division qualifications.


Player’s score
14. A player’s score is the total number of points scored by the player in that player’s 5 best scoring tournaments.

firegoat7
05-05-2005, 11:42 PM
GG,

Mate I know you are not responsible for this site, but at least you may be able to do something about it.

This 'Welcome to the 2004 Australian Chess Federation - Grand Prix."..is what you get when you click on the garnd prix link at the ACF website.

Now mate, it is May the 5th 2005, what is going on here?

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
06-05-2005, 03:59 AM
GG,

Mate I know you are not responsible for this site, but at least you may be able to do something about it.

This 'Welcome to the 2004 Australian Chess Federation - Grand Prix."..is what you get when you click on the garnd prix link at the ACF website.

Now mate, it is May the 5th 2005, what is going on here?

Cheers Fg7

FG, that's pretty nifty - 05/05/05

FM_Bill
05-10-2005, 11:44 PM
I would like to add an idea.

I think every point a player gets should count towards the grand prix,
from memory you only get grand prix points if you get a place, this is very boring.

You could get 5/7 and not get any grand prix points. If every point counts an average players could win the grand prix if they play in enough events.

In Britain they use this system and I think you count your best 200(!) games in a year.

It would encourage people to play in more events, and really open it up.

bergil
06-10-2005, 06:54 AM
I would like to add an idea.

I think every point a player gets should count towards the grand prix,
from memory you only get grand prix points if you get a place, this is very boring.

You could get 5/7 and not get any grand prix points. If every point counts an average players could win the grand prix if they play in enough events.

In Britain they use this system and I think you count your best 200(!) games in a year.

It would encourage people to play in more events, and really open it up.
Ok but if you did, you would still have to give points on top of the score to the winners of divisions.

bergil
06-10-2005, 06:59 AM
Why can't this Forum host the 2005 Grand Prix results and standing in a thread of its own like Mt Buller did? :hmm:

Ian Rout
06-10-2005, 09:17 AM
Why can't this Forum host the 2005 Grand Prix results and standing in a thread of its own like Mt Buller did? :hmm:
Or like the San Luis tipping cometition. Good idea.

Brain Jones is running it in 2006 so there won't be a problem then.

jase
06-10-2005, 01:08 PM
I would like to add an idea.

I think every point a player gets should count towards the grand prix,
from memory you only get grand prix points if you get a place, this is very boring.

You could get 5/7 and not get any grand prix points. If every point counts an average players could win the grand prix if they play in enough events.

In Britain they use this system and I think you count your best 200(!) games in a year.

It would encourage people to play in more events, and really open it up.

I like this idea. In addition to the allocation of points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, add each player's score; it will reward effort and make the GP more inclusive by featuring many more players in the points tallies.

bergil
09-10-2005, 01:56 PM
Now that tournament registration for the 2006 grand prix series is open and closes by December, how many tournaments will the NSWCA be nominating?

jase
10-10-2005, 12:12 PM
Now that tournament registration for the 2006 grand prix series is open and closes by December, how many tournaments will the NSWCA be nominating?

How many do you think they should nominate?
Why nominate at all, unless the Grand prix is serving its purpose of advertising tournaments, adding incentives to players, and adding to the cultural collective of the chess community.

I do think that Brian has the capacity to make the GP work again, and that NSW might nominate a similar number of tournaments to that of recent years. The final decision might not be made by the NSWCA Council until after its AGM in late November.

pull_my_finger
10-10-2005, 12:18 PM
How many do you think they should nominate?
Why nominate at all, unless the Grand prix is serving its purpose of advertising tournaments, adding incentives to players, and adding to the cultural collective of the chess community.

I do think that Brian has the capacity to make the GP work again, and that NSW might nominate a similar number of tournaments to that of recent years. The final decision might not be made by the NSWCA Council until after its AGM in late November.
Your sounding like you might stand for council, want to be president? :hmm:

jase
10-10-2005, 12:50 PM
Your sounding like you might stand for council, want to be president? :hmm:

You sound like you have the power to make such things happen. :hmm:

Brian's Grand Prix website looks promising.

pull_my_finger
10-10-2005, 02:01 PM
You sound like you have the power to make such things happen. :hmm:
Nope, so is that a yes to standing?


Brian's Grand Prix website looks promising.
What's the address?

jase
10-10-2005, 02:11 PM
Nope, so is that a yes to standing?
Yes



What's the address?
http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/grandprix/index.cfm?p=section&a=organisers

pull_my_finger
10-10-2005, 02:32 PM
OK so why if your were involved with the GP before and you think Brian did good work along with you and Shaun. Why are you saying you may not support the GP? Or is this the work of a puppet master in the back ground? :hmm:


Yes
Good on you for having a go.



http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/grandprix/index.cfm?p=section&a=organisers
Thank you. :clap:

jase
10-10-2005, 04:38 PM
OK so why if your were involved with the GP before and you think Brian did good work along with you and Shaun. Why are you saying you may not support the GP?

The GP is not presently serving its purpose. For a tournament to be involved in the GP costs money. In the last two years that's just money down the drain. Tournament organisers have received little benefit for subscribing.

Brian_Jones
10-10-2005, 04:50 PM
The GP is not presently serving its purpose. For a tournament to be involved in the GP costs money. In the last two years that's just money down the drain. Tournament organisers have received little benefit for subscribing.

Actually Jason it does not cost money to be in the 2006 Grand Prix.

Class 1 is free and it costs only from $100 to $400 for the classes 2 to 5.

I thought that it was too expensive before.

All we need now is some sponsorship to jack up the prizes. Do you know anybody that might put in $10,000?

arosar
10-10-2005, 08:19 PM
How about an exclusive jase? For the blog, of course.

AR

bergil
11-10-2005, 05:22 AM
I do think that Brian has the capacity to make the GP work again, and that NSW might nominate a similar number of tournaments to that of recent years. The final decision might not be made by the NSWCA Council until after its AGM in late November.
What's your position, how many do you think NSWCA should nominate?

pull_my_finger
13-10-2005, 09:47 AM
What's your position, how many do you think NSWCA should nominate?
C'mon Jase play it "straight" for once or can't you talk because the puppet master got your tongue? :hmm:

Dozy
13-10-2005, 10:28 AM
C'mon Jase play it "straight" for once or can't you talk because the puppet master got your tongue? :hmm:Considering the double entendre you use as a handle I'm surprised you didn't just say, "Extract the digit!"

pull_my_finger
13-10-2005, 12:20 PM
Considering the double entendre you use as a handle I'm surprised you didn't just say, "Extract the digit!"
There's more than a digit involved! :eek:

jase
13-10-2005, 12:40 PM
C'mon Jase play it "straight" for once or can't you talk because the puppet master got your tongue? :hmm:

Another reference to a puppet master; perhaps you'd like to show us how to play it straight by explaining who this master is, and why, through this inference, you feel that I would be an ineffectual President.

I think you've got your own puppet master, non?

You post also claims that I have a history of not 'playing it straight'; perhaps you could provide some examples?


What's your position, how many do you think NSWCA should nominate?
The NSWCA nominated 7 tournaments for the GP this year, of a total of 23 tournaments (quoting from here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3097)). That's a very high proportion (there were another 3 tournaments nominated from NSW). I would be looking at nominating about 4-5 NSWCA tournaments in 2006. I'd also want to consult with Brian Jones before making a final determination, to ascertain the balance of events across States.

auriga
13-10-2005, 01:06 PM
maybe nswca as a start could register their regular calendar events as
all cat 1's (free) and then look to see which ones they want to push/upgrade next
year to cat 2/3/4 (eg. NSW Open as Cat 4, Coffs Harbour as Cat 2, etc.)

pull_my_finger
13-10-2005, 02:55 PM
Another reference to a puppet master; perhaps you'd like to show us how to play it straight by explaining who this master is, and why, through this inference, you feel that I would be an ineffectual President.
My reference is to a business owner of related wares to the position you are seeking. I have no problem with you being President or you being on council but would prefer you be your own man and not a defacto voice for sombody else. Is it true you are not the only person intending to stand for council and that your the front man for a take over?


I think you've got your own puppet master, non?

No I just don't want to see an ambush of the current council. If you all get in then good luck to you but let's not pretend there's not a cabale trying to over take the council! :hand:

jase
13-10-2005, 03:47 PM
My reference is to a business owner of related wares to the position you are seeking. I have no problem with you being President or you being on council but would prefer you be your own man and not a defacto voice for sombody else. Is it true you are not the only person intending to stand for council and that your the front man for a take over?

No I just don't want to see an ambush of the current council. If you all get in then good luck to you but let's not pretend there's not a cabale trying to over take the council! :hand:

Instead of speaking in tongues, perhaps you ought to apply your own standards of being "straight".

For the record, there's no ambush. I had a coffee with Bill last week to discuss my nomination at the November AGM. I outlined my intentions and we had a good chat. Bill said that he would support my nomination.

I updated him on others who are joining me in seeking election to Council, at least one of which he was already aware of, and I expressed the wish that he remain on Council. Bill said he'd like to take up the Ratings portfolio again (the current holder of this position has recently moved to far north NSW).

Furthermore I have emailed most of the Council before posting my intentions here.

Of course I'm not going it alone. If you think it's a cabale, that's your call. I think the NSWCA is in poor shape and an enthusiastic team of Councillors will stand a better chance of meeting objectives that the current council + me.

If you think I'll be the defacto voice for someone else, that's your call. A call made from someone who knows very little about me, and nothing of the communications between myself and the current council over the past week.

I expect that each Councillor, including me, will have their own voice, and bring their ideas and enthusiasm to the NSWCA Council.

Dozy
13-10-2005, 04:02 PM
Instead of speaking in tongues, perhaps you ought to apply your own standards of being "straight".

For the record, there's no ambush. I had a coffee with Bill last week to discuss my nomination at the November AGM. I outlined my intentions and we had a good chat. Bill said that he would support my nomination.

I updated him on others who are joining me in seeking election to Council, at least one of which he was already aware of, and I expressed the wish that he remain on Council. Bill said he'd like to take up the Ratings portfolio again (the current holder of this position has recently moved to far north NSW).

Furthermore I have emailed most of the Council before posting my intentions here.

Of course I'm not going it alone. If you think it's a cabale, that's your call. I think the NSWCA is in poor shape and an enthusiastic team of Councillors will stand a better chance of meeting objectives that the current council + me.

If you think I'll be the defacto voice for someone else, that's your call. A call made from someone who knows very little about me, and nothing of the communications between myself and the current council over the past week.

I expect that each Councillor, including me, will have their own voice, and bring their ideas and enthusiasm to the NSWCA Council.Ain't it luverly to see somebody express their thoughts so strongly on the BB without resorting to personal abuse.

Good luck with your stint on the committee Jase, we'll look forward to positive results.

However both you and Mr Finger, whoever he may be, have referred to a cabale and I'm wondering if it's a reference to a Pinoy takeover. After all, the only cabale I know is Jeff Cabale who would certainly be an asset if he ever decided to stand -- but a cabal of Cabales would probably include Jeff and his sisters and his cousins and his aunts (as Bill Gilbert said so eloquently)... :whistle: :whistle:

---
I know, I know Mr Starter, it was only a mistype -- but I couldn't resist it.

four four two
13-10-2005, 04:30 PM
At least he didnt use Kaballah Dozy,cause that would make it a group of mystical jewish chess players,with no play on the Sabbath! ;)

arosar
13-10-2005, 04:31 PM
but let's not pretend there's not a cabale trying to over take the council! :hand:

No, I don't believe Nas Cabale is trying to take over Council.

AR

arosar
13-10-2005, 04:34 PM
At least he didnt use Kaballah Dozy,cause that would make it a group of mystical jewish chess players,with no play on the Sabbath! ;)

Aha! but at least we might get Madonna as patron. And you know, her hubby is a keen chesser.

AR

ursogr8
13-10-2005, 04:44 PM
Ain't it luverly to see somebody express their thoughts so strongly on the BB without resorting to personal abuse.

Good luck with your stint on the committee Jase, we'll look forward to positive results.

However both you and Mr Finger, whoever he may be, have referred to a cabale and I'm wondering if it's a reference to a Pinoy takeover. After all, the only cabale I know is Jeff Cabale who would certainly be an asset if he ever decided to stand -- but a cabal of Cabales would probably include Jeff and his sisters and his cousins and his aunts (as Bill Gilbert said so eloquently)... :whistle: :whistle:

---

Nice post of yours Mr Dozy.

Except for those infernal whistles that two other posters seem to have as an affliction. :rolleyes:

And except for the missing bit where you ask p_m_f to admit to his misjudgements.



I know, I know Mr Starter, it was only a mistype -- but I couldn't resist it.

'mistype'


Now there is a word (or two?) that catches the imagination. Misty eh? Have it seen to me old mate. ;)


starter

antichrist
13-10-2005, 10:58 PM
..........Of course I'm not going it alone. If you think it's a cabale, that's your call. I think the NSWCA is in poor shape and an enthusiastic team of Councillors will stand a better chance of meeting objectives that the current council + me.
.

God blimey, I wasn't even asked. A bit too far for meetings anyway, and remember where they are held.

Paul S
19-10-2005, 06:30 PM
Is Australian chess behind the times or ahead of the times? :hmm:

On the ACF website there is information about the 2006 Grand Prix, but NOTHING about the 2005 Grand Prix! :eek:

four four two
20-10-2005, 11:06 AM
As Prince once sang "Its a sign of the times...." ;)

themovingman
23-10-2005, 10:35 PM
Surely the Grand Prix is simply sleeping - ready to be awakened with renewed vigour. I suppose all the figures have been steadily collected - ready for calculations to be done wherever.