PDA

View Full Version : Who should be the 2004 GP winner?



Paul S
10-04-2005, 11:39 PM
I recently found out (a bit to my embarrassment) that the GP winners are determined on their best 5 results (and not their cumulative scores). This means that (according to Garvin's most recent spreadsheet) that Ian Rogers wins with 90.5 points to George Xie's 88.5 points.

Yet if cumulative scores were taken then (according to Garvin's latest Open spreadsheet) George Xie would be a clear winner as can be seen below:

George Xie = 20 (ADW) + 1.7 (Newcastle) + 16 (Rose Bay) + 9 (NSW Open) + 12 (Fairfield) + 17.5 (ANU Open) + 3.75 (Rose Bay) + 20 (Ryde) + 15 (Coffs) + 5.4 (Seberry) which I work out is 120.35 points.

Ian Rogers = 10.5 (Doeberl) + 20 (NSW Open) + 20 (GC Open) + 20 (Caloundra) + 20 (Uni Open) + 5.4 (ANU Open) is 95.9 points.

According to the GP website (and I've seen the same thing mentioned elsewhere too) we have:

"The aim of the Grand Prix is to provide a nation wide competition encouraging participation of entrants between all states and territories by linking events to a single series, encouraging all levels of playing skills ( to participate and enjoy the best of rated competition)."

So:
1) Shouldn't players who play in more GP events be rewarded accordingly?
2) What incentive is there for players to play in Cat 1 and Cat 2 events when the points they get from them will be swamped by Cat 3 events?
3) Why the discrimination in favour of the elite of chess?
4) How does the "5 best scores system" encourage players to travel to places like Taree and Laurieton to play in Cat 1 events?

I think that the GP should be based on cumulative scores and not the best 5. Therefore, George Xie should be the winner of the 2004 GP.

This system of "best 5 scores" seems wrong and elitist to me!

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2005, 12:05 AM
I recently found out (a bit to my embarrassment) that the GP winners are determined on their best 5 results (and not their cumulative scores). This means that (according to Garvin's most recent spreadsheet) that Ian Rogers wins with 90.5 points to George Xie's 88.5 points.

Yet if cumulative scores were taken then (according to Garvin's latest Open spreadsheet) George Xie would be a clear winner as can be seen below:

George Xie = 20 (ADW) + 1.7 (Newcastle) + 16 (Rose Bay) + 9 (NSW Open) + 12 (Fairfield) + 17.5 (ANU Open) + 3.75 (Rose Bay) + 20 (Ryde) + 15 (Coffs) + 5.4 (Seberry) which I work out is 120.35 points.

Ian Rogers = 10.5 (Doeberl) + 20 (NSW Open) + 20 (GC Open) + 20 (Caloundra) + 20 (Uni Open) + 5.4 (ANU Open) is 95.9 points.

According to the GP website (and I've seen the same thing mentioned elsewhere too) we have:

"The aim of the Grand Prix is to provide a nation wide competition encouraging participation of entrants between all states and territories by linking events to a single series, encouraging all levels of playing skills ( to participate and enjoy the best of rated competition)."

So:
1) Shouldn't players who play in more GP events be rewarded accordingly?No, because then it would be based on who could afford to play in the most GP events.

2) What incentive is there for players to play in Cat 1 and Cat 2 events when the points they get from them will be swamped by Cat 3 events?Because they may in reality gain more points from a Cat 1 than a Cat 3 based on their result in that event.

3) Why the discrimination in favour of the elite of chess?How is it discrimination in favour of the elite. All players are treated the same.

4) How does the "5 best scores system" encourage players to travel to places like Taree and Laurieton to play in Cat 1 events?Because a good result in a Cat 1 is better than getting no GP points from a Cat 3 because of a poor result.

I think that the GP should be based on cumulative scores and not the best 5. Therefore, George Xie should be the winner of the 2004 GP.

This system of "best 5 scores" seems wrong and elitist to me!It isnt elitist at all.
However what you or even I think doesnt matter. ;)
Its what the rules are that matters and it has always been the sum of a players best 5 scores.

Paul S
11-04-2005, 12:27 AM
No, because then it would be based on who could afford to play in the most GP events.

Not necessarily.


Because they may in reality gain more points from a Cat 1 than a Cat 3 based on their result in that event.

It is also a reality that a Cat 1 winner gets considerably less points than a Cat 3 winner.


How is it discrimination in favour of the elite. All players are treated the same.

Elite players spend a fair amount of time playing chess overseas. Therefore, the "best 5 results" system favours them.



Because a good result in a Cat 1 is better than getting no GP points from a Cat 3 because of a poor result.

It is also a reality that a Cat 1 winner gets considerably less points than a Cat 3 winner.



It isnt elitist at all.
However what you or even I think doesnt matter. ;)
Its what the rules are that matters and it has always been the sum of a players best 5 scores.

To my knowledge the "best 5 results" system is a recent innovation. Next time you make one of your regular visists to Peter Parr's shop, perhaps you could ask him? (Peter was a GP co-ordinator a few years ago).

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 12:37 AM
Our so called elite players except for Rogers, even in the Asian region, are far from elite. The word "dross" seems more appropriate. Doesn't seem to stop the incessant "brown nosing" though.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2005, 12:55 AM
Not necessarily.Clearly if you counted all results the winners of the divisions would be the most consistent players who could afford the most travel and participate in the most events.

It is also a reality that a Cat 1 winner gets considerably less points than a Cat 3 winner.Well duh. Naturally Cat 3's are worth more than Cat 1's because they are stronger events with greater prize money and attracting more players.

Elite players spend a fair amount of time playing chess overseas. Therefore, the "best 5 results" system favours them.Thats rubbish. The same rules apply to the Open winners as the U2000 or U1600 winners. Perhaps you mean the elite players rated under 2000 or under 1600 who play overseas.

It is also a reality that a Cat 1 winner gets considerably less points than a Cat 3 winner.Well of course. Cat 3 events are stronger events.

To my knowledge the "best 5 results" system is a recent innovation.Only partially correct. There was always a limit. Prior to the best 5 it used to be the best 7. The best 5 was introduced when Jason Lyons restructured the GP in 2000 reducing it from Cats 1-5 to Cats 1-3.

Next time you make one of your regular visists to Peter Parr's shop, perhaps you could ask him? (Peter was a GP co-ordinator a few years ago).I dont need to. I know the details. Peter ran it in 1997. It was the best 7 results.

Ian Rout
11-04-2005, 08:56 AM
I don't think there's a right or wrong system. Counting all the tournaments means that mediocre performances will do if you just have a lot of them, on the other hand if you want the GP to be about quantity as much or more than quality than that's fine. You could even go completely in that direction and just count the number of GP events players enter.

However the time for the discussion is before the season starts, you can't change it during or afterwards. A poll on what system should apply to the 2006 GP, if there is one, would be be more meaningful.

pax
11-04-2005, 09:51 AM
Well you could count out anyone who didn't live on the Eastern Seaboard. In fact, you could pretty much count out anyone who didn't live in Sydney!

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 10:31 AM
That is one of the main reasons it is top five results counting, so it gives someone from interstate a chance to win the overall prizes. They can play in the big gp 3 tournaments and do well and still win it.

If it was all results counted, then a player from outside the Greater Sydney area would have almost no chance.

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 04:26 PM
I think that the GP should be based on cumulative scores and not the best 5. Therefore, George Xie should be the winner of the 2004 GP.

Paul, this is the silliest thing I've ever seen you post. It is the most Sydneycentric piece of nonsense you'd ever see. If you live in Sydney, whoopdedoo. What about us in QLD who don't get access to GP events nearly as much? I would have ZERO chance of winning anything if it was cumulative. In fact I argue 5 events is far too many.. there probably aren't even 5 GP events in QLD! I think there should be some kind of scaling.. 7 events if you live in NSW, 5 in Canberra and 3 elsewhere.

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 04:30 PM
there probably aren't even 5 GP events in QLD!
2004- Gold Coast Open, Caloundra Open, Darling Downs, Nell Van Der Graff, Peninsula and Redcliffe Opens.

Three cat 3 tourneys and three cat 1 tourneys.

2005- Brisbane Open, Gold Coast Open, Caloundra, Nell Van Der Graff. Not sure if there are any more at this stage.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2005, 05:01 PM
I think that the GP should be based on cumulative scores and not the best 5. Therefore, George Xie should be the winner of the 2004 GP.

I agree with Ian Rout's comments - the way you are putting this is silly because you don't change the 2004 rules after the 2004 season is finished. You should have expressed it as "I think the system should be X and if season Y had been conducted under system X then player Z would have won." Of course maybe the players involved would have played different numbers of GP events had the rules been different.


This system of "best 5 scores" seems wrong and elitist to me!

The main reason for it, as Belthesar hints at, was to give those playing in states with a relatively small number of GP events some sort of shot at a placing if they are remarkably consistent. If anything this is anti-elitist.

Paul S
12-04-2005, 12:40 AM
Paul, this is the silliest thing I've ever seen you post. It is the most Sydneycentric piece of nonsense you'd ever see. If you live in Sydney, whoopdedoo. What about us in QLD who don't get access to GP events nearly as much? I would have ZERO chance of winning anything if it was cumulative. In fact I argue 5 events is far too many.. there probably aren't even 5 GP events in QLD! I think there should be some kind of scaling.. 7 events if you live in NSW, 5 in Canberra and 3 elsewhere.

Its not so much about living in Sydney (or any other major city). With NSW (and Sydney in particular) its more a case of having a majority of NSWCA Council keen on having their tournaments GP rated. I see no reason why Chess Victoria or CAQ cannot run as many GP tournaments as what the NSWCA does.

Therefore, you should lobby CAQ for more GP tournaments in Queensland if this is what you are after :P ! Or try and persuade Bill to move to Queensland to become your next CAQ President ;) , as Bill is a keen supporter of the GP!

Then again, you could even become a Queensland tournament organiser yourself and run all of the ones you organise as GP weekenders. :owned: ;) :lol:

P.S. Given that I don't really care about the GP any more (see my posts in other threads), I think your better off with CAQ's policy regarding the GP than with NSWCA's policy!

Garvinator
12-04-2005, 01:22 AM
Then again, you could even become a Queensland tournament organiser yourself and run all of the ones you organise as GP weekenders. :owned: ;) :lol:
caq already has a tournament officer who is aiming to get more tournaments going;) ;) :cool: