PDA

View Full Version : NSWCA May Weekender



Trent Parker
08-05-2005, 10:22 AM
.... Is next weekend...

Details here (http://www.nswca.org.au)

Trent Parker
10-05-2005, 12:24 AM
BTW

Buses are replacing trains on the ESR and illawarra line this weekend. may be better to catch train to St James and catch a bus direct to the venue instead of hopping off the train at Edgecliff

Garvinator
10-05-2005, 01:04 AM
BTW

Buses are replacing trains on the ESR and illawarra line this weekend. may be better to catch train to St James and catch a bus direct to the venue instead of hopping off at Edgecliff
it feels like nswca try to hold their chess events right at the time when shittyrail are doing trackwork on that line :doh: :whistle:

EGOR
10-05-2005, 05:42 AM
it feels like nswca try to hold their chess events right at the time when shittyrail are doing trackwork on that line :doh: :whistle:
No, it's just that Cityrail plans their trackwork to cause the most disrumption possible, even for us poor little chess players.

antichrist
10-05-2005, 08:50 AM
Whoever lives on the Illawarra line deserve all that they get.

Rincewind
10-05-2005, 09:03 AM
Whoever lives on the Illawarra line deserve all that they get.

So true. Thanks AC I'll take that as a compliment. Actually if they could cut the roads between here and Sydney too then things really would be perfect (not spoilt by hoards of Sydney weekenders). ;)

auriga
10-05-2005, 11:29 AM
No, it's just that Cityrail plans their trackwork to cause the most disrumption possible, even for us poor little chess players.

the sydney train network is like a big bowl of spaghetti
that will take 10 years to unravel.

Spiny Norman
11-05-2005, 07:02 AM
Sell it off like us Mexicans .... we actually have half-decent trains now!

Trent Parker
11-05-2005, 09:03 AM
Whoever lives on the Illawarra line deserve all that they get.

Does everyone realise that the illawarra line is bounded by Waterfall and Cronulla.... and that the line past waterfall is known as the south coast line?

Rincewind
11-05-2005, 09:13 AM
Does everyone realise that the illawarra line is bounded by Waterfall and Cronulla.... and that the line past waterfall is known as the south coast line?
I was actually thinking of cutting roads just to the south of Waterfall. Between the train station and where the tollway gates were. ;)

Trent Parker
11-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Oh ok :lol: :doh:

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2005, 10:56 AM
I see where Sweeney has made the following incorrect statement.
BTW, are you aware that there will be a riot at Rose Bay when Bekker announces that the advertised U1200 divisional prize has been withdrawn by the NSWCA?The NSWCA advert for the May weekender that was sent to all members does not and never has had an advertised U1200 divisional prize. As such no prize has been withdrawn as no such prize was advertised.
Given his memory has been faulty on previous occasions I even gave him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he was remembering the 2004 May weekender, but on checking I find it also did not have an advertised U1200 prize.

jase
13-05-2005, 12:56 PM
He's probably just confused himself between the May weekender and the NSW Open, which I think is offering an u/1200 prize.

I'm not playing or arbitering at Rose Bay, but I'll be dropping in to remind myself what a chess tournament looks like, and say hello.

And RSLs have cheap beer and TABs...

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2005, 01:04 PM
He's probably just confused himself between the May weekender and the NSW Open, which I think is offering an u/1200 prize.Possibly since its all in the one thread but I doubt it, firstly because he has been complaining about the fact that the U1200 prize in the NSW Open is less than the other rating division prizes and secondly because he was the one who then raised the issue of the Rose Bay event.
Of course checking his facts before shooting his mouth off has never been his style.

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2005, 06:55 PM
Unable to respond in a rational manner Sweeney goes off on his using abusive rant.

No problem Bill, you ******* dead ***. It doesn't matter one whit which NSWCA tournament it is Billbot ********. What the point is, you wingnut headed excuse for a President is, that one of our tournaments has a prize structure that insults the bottom division. It doesn't matter what the cut-off point is, what matters is that it isn't fair to the low those players. (I am assuming that each division will have similar numbers of players.)

But does the nob-end of universe speak to that problem - the very point of the thread? No. He attacks a minor error. The big things don't count, do they you old cramp. You must have Aspergers. No body could be so stupid as to never ever ever ever see the forest for the trees.

The sooner you disappear the better. On your way, tell us why you are such an elitist pig who hates ordinary people and continues to insult the lower grades by having them receive less than a fair share of the prize money at the NSW Open. ****!The orginal plan for the NSW Open U1600 Division did not include a U1200 prize at all. We decided that it was desirable to include a U1200 but the budget did not allow for it to be equal to the other divisions. The NSWCA Council saw no problem with this as we noted Australia's number one event the highly successful Doeberl Cup does not pay similar prize money for its various rating prizes in the major/minor even though the entry fees are identical. I dont recall ever seeing Sweeney complain about the Doeberl organisers doing that.

Of course all Sweeney is doing is demonstrating yet again what a total hypocrite he is.
On checking all emails sent by Matt whilst he was on the NSWCA Council he never once suggested that all rating division prizes be the same. In fact when Ralph originally proposed the prizes for the 2004 Australia Day weekender be 1st $900, 2nd $450, 3rd $300, 4th $100, U2000 1st $300, 2nd $100, U1800 $150, U1600 $150, U1400 $150, best junior $150 Matt fully supported the proposal with his only suggestion being that the first prize be increased to $1000.
Obviously he had no problem with U2000 players getting a larger slice than the remaining rating divisions.
It is therefore no wonder that he has no credibilty.

Matt had his opportunity to contribute to chess in NSW when he was on the NSWCA Council in 2004 but he did nothing that he promised he would do and contributed nothing.

As such he abrogated any rights to criticise how the NSWCA Council runs its events.

EGOR
14-05-2005, 05:57 AM
Personally, I have no interest in hearing what some one has to say on another bulletin board here. If I want to know I'll go to that one.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 02:45 PM
Personally, I have no interest in hearing what some one has to say on another bulletin board here. If I want to know I'll go to that one.Thats all well and good EGOR, but I refuse to post on his board.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 04:24 PM
Bull****! The budget does or doesn't allow anything. People do. A budget can be rearranged, dimwit.There was either the option of having no U1200 prize or having a U1200 prize less than the other rating division prizes. The Council chose the later. Anyway the awarding of prize-money is not a measure of the value of players. The awarding of prize-money is in recognition of outcomes in a tournament. The NSWCA Council runs chess in NSW and not you and it will decide how it wishes to structure its events.
You can run your own events as you see fit. If you ever run events with 80+ players perhaps then you will have some experience to back up your statements.

The Doeberl is a great event that is not run in my state by my Association. You seam to have noticed that I refrain from commenting on other Association's business. It is very rare that I stick my nose into other state's or club's business.I'm sure the other State Associations are thankful beyond measure that you are not a member of their Associations.

NSWCA is my Association and therefore its behaviour is my businessPerhaps but your attitude is clearly hypocritical. If you truly believe that all events should have equal prizes for all rating divisions then if you were consistent you would criticise all events where that isnt the case.

These were private emails, were they not? While I don't care that you are now revealing what I would also say publicly, you are breaking the rules the same rules that got FG7 banned. If the mods at CC had any integrity at all they would ban you too for breaking the rules. Or maybe breaking the rules is OK for some - especially when it is against Matthew Sweeney. CC appears to be a morally corrupt BB Moderated bt ****, for ****.Incorrect and a total misrepresentation of the situation. fg7 was banned for publishing the contents of private messages on the chesskit board. I did not publish any content of your emails. I simply made comments regarding them.

I did have a problem with it, and still do. At the time,
1. I thought $900 is stupid when $1000 is soooo much more sexy.
2. I was trying to support Ralph as he tried smash some sense into the council members, so, I didn't want to be seen as "anti". Such a pity that the Purdy Memorial he started last year has been scrapped this year for want of leadership. (BTW Bill, FO)All this shows is that you are a hypocrite.

=Matthew Sweeny]I do contribute. I do: school chess; junior club chess; and run open tournaments, and pay ~$500 in entry fees every year to play chess and win ~$50 - but I'm not complaining!

Therefore, I DO contribute. You are such a con artist. People know you are right when you quote info from a data bases and text archives. But when it comes to telling the WHOLE story you simply omit the inconvenient. This is dishonest and it is perennially on show for all to see. (BTW Bill, FO again)Comprehension is as always has been your problem. You chose to stand for a position on the 2004 NSWCA Council. All I said was that whilst you were on the NSWCA Council you promised the counil you would do things but did nothing and effectively contributed nothing to the Council or the position for which you stood. That is a simple statement of fact.

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Bill, I'm getting a bit sick of this.

Matthew Sweeney is banned from this board.

You are posting his rubbish here.

Please stop it! :evil:

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 05:11 PM
Bill, I'm getting a bit sick of this.

Matthew Sweeney is banned from this board.

You are posting his rubbish here.

Please stop it! :evil:Take it up with the Mods.
If they ask me to stop I will do so.
So far they havent.

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 05:54 PM
Take it up with the Mods.
If they ask me to stop I will do so.
So far they havent.

OK ... <shrugs> ... will do ... :pray:

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 08:59 PM
The numbers for this event turned out to be a disappointing 34. The lowest for any weekender since the May Weekender in 2000 that also had 34 entrants (held at Ashfield).
Virtually all of the conditions for this event were identical to the NSWCA's very successful Australia Day weekender that attracted 77 players.
Both events had identical entry fees, prize structures, round times, time controls and both were held on normal 2 day weekends.

The only difference was that the Australia Day Weekender was held at Nth Sydney Leagues Club where as the May Weekender is being held at Rose Bay RSL.

The NSWCA runs standard weekenders in late January, mid May, lateJuly/early August and mid November. The January and November events are held at Nth Sydney and the other two at Rose Bay.

The numbers for the Australia Day weekender since 2002-2004 have been 49, 62 and 54 whilst the May weekender have been 39, 59 and 43.
Overall 165 - 141 but no thats jumped to 242 - 175.

What conclusion if any should the NSWCA Council draw from this.

EGOR
14-05-2005, 10:10 PM
Thats all well and good EGOR, but I refuse to post on his board.
That does not give you the right to post your replies to what he says on his board on this board. If you have to relpy to what he is saying email it to him!!! :wall:

EGOR
14-05-2005, 10:14 PM
Bull****! The budget does or doesn't allow anything. People do. A budget can be rearranged, dimwit.
So you object to his foul language, but you post quotes from him with his foul language in it.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 12:28 AM
So you object to his foul language, but you post quotes from him with his foul language in it.Actually I just missed editing it. I'll correct it.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 12:30 AM
That does not give you the right to post your replies to what he says on his board on this board. If you have to relpy to what he is saying email it to him!!! :wall:That option does not permit others to see the facts of the situation and allows his misrepresentation to go unchallenged.

EGOR
15-05-2005, 01:30 PM
Actually I just missed editing it. I'll correct it.
Anyone can make a mistake. How do i edit the language out of mine?

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 02:37 PM
Anyone can make a mistake. How do i edit the language out of mine?You cannot as you missed the 12hr editing window.

Rincewind
15-05-2005, 02:45 PM
Anyone can make a mistake. How do i edit the language out of mine?
PM me with the post and the word(s) you want removed and I can do it.

arosar
15-05-2005, 05:28 PM
Bill, I'm getting a bit sick of this.

Matthew Sweeney is banned from this board.

You are posting his rubbish here.

Please stop it! :evil:

What I'm sick of is that we have these two boards. It's inconvenient. Better we just unban Matt. Then he and Bill can have it all out.

AR

Rincewind
15-05-2005, 05:30 PM
What I'm sick of is that we have these two boards. It's inconvenient. Better we just unban Matt.
Or ban you. :)

Spiny Norman
15-05-2005, 06:03 PM
What I'm sick of is that we have these two boards. It's inconvenient. Better we just unban Matt. Then he and Bill can have it all out.

Sounds all well and good ... but does anyone seriously believe that either will back down one whit? Bill won't play in MS's sandpit. MS can't play in Bill's. I'd suggest that's a reasonably satisfactory outcome. "Harm minimisation" is a viable strategy nowadays. ;) Now Bill can legitimately take the moral high ground with "I would easily refute your nonsense but THEY won't let me" and that's a whole lot less work than dragging MS' content over here and tackling it point by point.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 06:12 PM
What I'm sick of is that we have these two boards. It's inconvenient. Better we just unban Matt. Then he and Bill can have it all out.
Matt continually demonstrated he cannot follow the rules here with regards language/behaviour. His problems are all his own doing.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 12:56 AM
1 Xie, George NSW 2353 7 7:W 12:W 2:W 8:W 3:W 4:W 13:W
2 Stojic, Danny NSW 1962 5.5 31:W 19:W 1:L 23:W 9:W 8:W 3:D
3 Bolens, Johny NSW 2050 5 26:W 11:W 28:W 4:D 1:L 7:W 2:D
4 Murray, Bruce D NSW 1996 5 24:W 21:D 23:W 3:D 10:W 1:L 9:W
5 Harris, Rebecca NSW 1631 5 14:W 8:L 16:L 30:W 17:W 20:W 10:W
6 Rachmadi, Herman NSW 1636 5 17:L 18:L 33:W 26:W 14:W 16:W 8:W
7 Harris, Benjamin NSW 1565 4.5 1:L 33:W 17:D 12:W 28:+ 3:L 21:W
8 Ayvazyan, Armen NSW 2198 4 25:W 5:W 9:W 1:L 13:W 2:L 6:L
9 Javor, Stephen NSW 1692 4 18:W 34:+ 8:L 21:W 2:L 19:W 4:L
10 Tse, Jeffrey NSW 1704 4 16:D 20:W 21:D 19:W 4:L 11:W 5:L
11 Reid, Vaness NSW 1622 4 33:W 3:L 18:W 13:L 15:W 10:L 22:W
12 Wu, Edwin NSW 1655 4 0:D 1:L 31:W 7:L 18:+ 15:D 24:W
13 Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 1897 4 20:D 16:D 22:W 11:W 8:L 21:W 1:L
14 Sweeney, Matthew NSW 1293 4 5:L 24:W 20:L 31:W 6:L 29:W 30:W
15 Ingram, Ben W NSW 1988 4 22:L 29:W 26:D 16:W 11:L 12:D 20:W
16 Cohn, Jason NSW 1415 3.5 10:D 13:D 5:W 15:L 24:W 6:L 19:D
17 Russell, Luthien QLD 1299 3.5 6:W 28:L 7:D 0:D 5:L 23:D 32:W
18 Morales, Raul NSW 1410 3.5 9:L 6:W 11:L 0:D 12:- 26:W 29:W
19 Miranda, Adrian NSW 1583 3.5 27:W 2:L 30:W 10:L 26:W 9:L 16:D
20 Parker, Trent NSW 1434 3 13:D 10:L 14:W 0:D 23:W 5:L 15:L
21 Low, Frank NSW 1618 3 32:W 4:D 10:D 9:L 29:W 13:L 7:L
22 Adler, Nathan NSW 1452 3 15:W 23:L 13:L 24:L 32:W 25:W 11:L
23 Nicholson, Scott NSW 1656 3 30:W 22:W 4:L 2:L 20:L 17:D 27:D
24 Art, Carl NSW 1467 3 4:L 14:L 32:W 22:W 16:L 30:W 12:L
25 Kresinger, Frank NSW 1495 3 8:L 30:L 29:L 33:W 27:W 22:L 31:W
26 Greenwood, Norman NSW 1482 2.5 3:L 27:W 15:D 6:L 19:L 18:L 0:W
27 McCormack, Daniel NSW 2.5 19:L 26:L 0:W 29:L 25:L 32:W 23:D
28 Harp, Joel NSW 1842 2.5 29:W 17:W 3:L 0:D 7:- 0: 0:
29 Adler, David NSW 1421 2 28:L 15:L 25:W 27:W 21:L 14:L 18:L
30 Evans, Carrie NSW 1388 2 23:L 25:W 19:L 5:L 31:W 24:L 14:L
31 Tracey, Michael J NSW 1437 2 2:L 32:W 12:L 14:L 30:L 0:W 25:L
32 Harrison, Joe NSW 1 21:L 31:L 24:L 0:W 22:L 27:L 17:L
33 Ngo, Michael NSW 1050 1 11:L 7:L 6:L 25:L 0:W 0: 0:
34 Secombe, Alan NSW 1 0:W 9:- 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:

Trent Parker
16-05-2005, 01:42 AM
what an unlucky pairing i had in the last round........

Lucena
16-05-2005, 01:09 PM
What I'm sick of is that we have these two boards. It's inconvenient. Better we just unban Matt. Then he and Bill can have it all out.

AR

This was my solution:

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=57832&postcount=378

Sounds fair, right?

ursogr8
23-05-2005, 01:40 PM
When Bill posted this (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=57696&postcount=22), and in particular this sentence "What conclusion if any should the NSWCA Council draw from this.", then I nearly choked on my Brett-bix.

How often does the NSW Prez. turn to the BB for advice? In that free-flowing democracy, how many NSWegians will give Bill advice?
Of course it is time for a Mexican to just sit on his hands and just watch,.................... and watch,..... and watch,.... .
No-one! That's right; no-one comes forward to help Bill.
Bill, who has patiently and delicately responded to many a post on ratings, and many other topics; in his moment of need...perhaps his first plea for help that I can remember...gets no-one responding. :(

Finally, Bill posts the cross-table of the event, and this a chance to look deeply into who did play.
Now I can make my contribution
Originally Posted by starter
Competitive index for this event (discarding apparently unrated players, and not paired in round 1) = 472

Two games decided in round 1 where the lower rated player won.
Just circumstantial evidence, maybe,...but a junk round 1 nevertheless.


And then on another thread, a post that just took my breath away.
The core of the post was
> Players over 2000 rating who intend to play listed in the LINK. (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/decplay.htm)
There is something about this competitive chess that attracts NSWegians.

If only Mexico could attract some similar entries from just a handful of the 85% of their ACTIVE players with a rating over 2000 who don't play much chess at all. (And of course the INACTIVE ones with over a 2000 rating are a dead-loss to our INTERCLUB equivalent).

There you have it Bill.
Just two pieces of circumstantial evidence.
I am sure you will say....but look at tourney XXXX with the same conditions...it had a better turnout. That is OK with me....refute my post in its entirety....but I couldn't leave you asking for help, but being ignored by sundry.

starter

ps I trust that the MOD will not censor this post as he has done with my previous contribution.

Gringo
23-05-2005, 01:45 PM
Gletzos asking for advice - as if.....

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2005, 01:49 PM
When Bill posted this (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=57696&postcount=22), and in particular this sentence "What conclusion if any should the NSWCA Council draw from this.", then I nearly choked on my Brett-bix.

How often does the NSW Prez. turn to the BB for advice? In that free-flowing democracy, how many NSWegians will give Bill advice?
Of course it is time for a Mexican to just sit on his hands and just watch,.................... and watch,..... and watch,.... .
No-one! That's right; no-one comes forward to help Bill.
Bill, who has patiently and delicately responded to many a post on ratings, and many other topics; in his moment of need...perhaps his first plea for help that I can remember...gets no-one responding. :(

Finally, Bill posts the cross-table of the event, and this a chance to look deeply into who did play.
Now I can make my contribution
Originally Posted by starter
Competitive index for this event (discarding apparently unrated players, and not paired in round 1) = 472

Two games decided in round 1 where the lower rated player won.
Just circumstantial evidence, maybe,...but a junk round 1 nevertheless.


And then on another thread, a post that just took my breath away.
The core of the post was
> Players over 2000 rating who intend to play listed in the LINK. (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/decplay.htm)
There is something about this competitive chess that attracts NSWegians.

If only Mexico could attract some similar entries from just a handful of the 85% of their ACTIVE players with a rating over 2000 who don't play much chess at all. (And of course the INACTIVE ones with over a 2000 rating are a dead-loss to our INTERCLUB equivalent).

There you have it Bill.
Just two pieces of circumstantial evidence.
I am sure you will say....but look at tourney XXXX with the same conditions...it had a better turnout. That is OK with me....refute my post in its entirety....but I couldn't leave you asking for help, but being ignored by sundry.Thanks for the response starter but I dont think the competeitive index is relevant.

The May weekender was run under exactly the same conditions as the very successful Australia Day weekender with the only difference being the venue.

As such this would seem to indicate that the competitive index was totally irrelevant. After all if it had any relevance why wasnt the Australia Day weekender similarly effected.

ursogr8
23-05-2005, 02:15 PM
Thanks for the response starter but I dont think the competeitive index is relevant.

The May weekender was run under exactly the same conditions as the very successful Australia Day weekender with the only difference being the venue.

As such this would seem to indicate that the competitive index was totally irrelevant. After all if it had any relevance why wasnt the Australia Day weekender similarly effected.

Thanks Bill.
I must say I am relieved that you quoted my whole post; that should discourage the MOD censor from deleting a second time.

Not like you to address a post in a perfunctory way. The second piece of circumstantial evidence did not attract your analysis? It really is a very commendable field assembled HERE. (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/decplay.htm)

starter

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2005, 02:18 PM
Thanks Bill.
I must say I am relieved that you quoted my whole post; that should discourage the MOD censor from deleting a second time.

Not like you to address a post in a perfunctory way. The second piece of circumstantial evidence did not attract your analysis? It really is a very commendable field assembled HERE. (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/decplay.htm)That is just the list of nominated players rated over 2000 who can play in the Open Division of the NSWCA Grade Matches and clearly has no comparison to the May weekender or the Australia Day weekender.

ursogr8
23-05-2005, 02:47 PM
That is just the list of nominated players rated over 2000 who can play in the Open Division of the NSWCA Grade Matches and clearly has no comparison to the May weekender or the Australia Day weekender.

Bill

You may suggest that it is ho-hum that 38 players (with ratings over 2000) are listed for the GRADES, whereas only 34 in total entered for the May w/e (incl. 3 over 2000). By way of contrast, VIC could only attract 11 players rated over 2000 to the 2004 INTERCLUB.
I think the 38 figure is very encouraging for you.

Btw, have you had any PMs or other feedback on your original question?




starter

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2005, 02:53 PM
Bill

You may suggest that it is ho-hum that 38 players (with ratings over 2000) are listed for the GRADES, whereas only 34 in total entered for the May w/e (incl. 3 over 2000). By way of contrast, VIC could only attract 11 players rated over 2000 to the 2004 INTERCLUB.
I think the 38 figure is very encouraging for you.I wasnt suggesting it was ho-hum. Those are your words. I simply pointed out it was unrelated to our weekenders.

Btw, have you had any PMs or other feedback on your original question?Yes and they suggested that the Australia Day weekender's venue is likely to be more preferable than the May weekender venue.

Duff McKagan
23-05-2005, 05:08 PM
This is a no brainer. Starter, sorry for putting pin in your bubble but the Index is not it. For sydney sisers we all know the various venues. Rose Bay is very nice for a stroll around the harbour. It has a good food strip and public transport. The North Sydney venue is typical of club land. Souless and hygenic.

The difference is that North Sydney has a chess club of regular players to top up the numbers in the weekenders. Rose Bay has not.

Cheers :cool:

ursogr8
23-05-2005, 05:38 PM
^^
Ok. Thanks for that.
It was what Bill was saying too.

I just got peeved because the MOD censored my post, and I was the only respondent to Bill's request for help.

starter

eclectic
23-05-2005, 06:10 PM
^^
Ok. Thanks for that.
It was what Bill was saying too.

I just got peeved because the MOD censored my post, and I was the only respondent to Bill's request for help.

starter

starter,

did anyone else, besides the MOD, "complain" about your helping of "index" in this thread before the latter unilaterally gave it his "finger" ?

despite touching on your pet topic it was still within the gamut of what the thread is about.

even though your "metric meanderings" may at times leave me flummuxed i side with you in protesting against this spurious use of the moderator button.

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2005, 06:59 PM
The difference is that North Sydney has a chess club of regular players to top up the numbers in the weekenders. Rose Bay has not.If you actually compare the entry lists for the Australia Day weekender (77 players) at Nth Sydney and the May weekender (33 players) at Rose Bay its does not appear that this was a factor in any way whatsoever.
At Rose Bay 16 players tarricipated that did not play at Nth Sydney leaving only 17 that played at both. That means 60 players who played at Nth Sydney did not play at Rose Bay. Of those 60 only 2 appear to be Nth Sydney members.

ursogr8
23-05-2005, 08:22 PM
starter,

did anyone else, besides the MOD, "complain" about your helping of "index" in this thread before the latter unilaterally gave it his "finger" ?

despite touching on your pet topic it was still within the gamut of what the thread is about.

even though your "metric meanderings" may at times leave me flummuxed i side with you in protesting against this spurious use of the moderator button.

eclectic

hi eclectic

Actually, if I had got complaints then maybe the deletion could have been diverted. To me it was obvious that
> Bill asked for help
>> Bill posted the cross-table
>>> I calculated the index for round 1 as this is the first test of junk=non-competitive=reduced_interest,
but if you say I meander, and the thread of the argument is not apparent, then a MOD with time on his hands might give it the three fingered salute.
Cheesed me a bit because it was the only response Bill got, and we should encourage him to ask such questions.

Btw...I like the reappearance of flummoxed, but my Funk and Wagnall only has flummery. No comment necessary; Baz probably already has the right drum.

Anyhow, Bill has researched elsewhere obviously, and the consensus was
'the venue didn't do it
to the players
with the sidewalks'.


starter


ps
I notice we spell the flum. word differently.

eclectic
23-05-2005, 08:33 PM
hi eclectic

Actually, if I had got complaints then maybe the deletion could have been diverted. To me it was obvious that
> Bill asked for help
>> Bill posted the cross-table
>>> I calculated the index for round 1 as this is the first test of junk=non-competitive=reduced_interest,
but if you say I meander, and the thread of the argument is not apparent, then a MOD with time on his hands might give it the three fingered salute.
Cheesed me a bit because it was the only response Bill got, and we should encourage him to ask such questions.

Btw...I like the reappearance of flummoxed, but my Funk and Wagnall only has flummery. No comment necessary; Baz probably already has the right drum.

Anyhow, Bill has researched elsewhere obviously, and the consensus was
'the venue didn't do it
to the players
with the sidewalks'.


starter


ps
I notice we spell the flum. word differently.

flummox seems to be the "english"
flummux seems to be the "american"

eclectic

Denis_Jessop
23-05-2005, 09:56 PM
Per Bill Gletsos, post#47 - "tarricipated"

I say Bill, this must take first prize for the most inventive typo of the 21st Century. Not only that, but it also looks like quite a useful word in its own right.

The ACF will give no prizes for the best suggested meaning of this word in a chess context. :lol: :rolleyes: :wall: :hmm:

DJ

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2005, 10:51 PM
Per Bill Gletsos, post#47 - "tarricipated"

I say Bill, this must take first prize for the most inventive typo of the 21st Century. Not only that, but it also looks like quite a useful word in its own right.

The ACF will give no prizes for the best suggested meaning of this word in a chess context. :lol: :rolleyes: :wall: :hmm:

DJActually I originally planned to say "played that" and decided on "players participated that". Obviosuly I did watch what I typed. :doh:

Trent Parker
23-05-2005, 11:41 PM
*restrains self due to the colourful words that i want to use*

Starter the competitive index rubbish is not helpful

Keep it in your competitiveness index thread.

I was very close to editing out the competitiveness index again but i will let that one slip through to the keeper.

HOWEVER In the future i will be deleting the post and NOT posting it to your competitive index thread.

So Keep that rubbish there.

eclectic
24-05-2005, 05:03 AM
*restrains self due to the colourful words that i want to use*

Starter the competitive index rubbish is not helpful

Keep it in your competitiveness index thread.

I was very close to editing out the competitiveness index again but i will let that one slip through to the keeper.

HOWEVER In the future i will be deleting the post and NOT posting it to your competitive index thread.

So Keep that rubbish there.

hey starter,

;)

how about you start a thread perhaps entitled

STARTER'S COMPETITIVE INDEX LOG

at which you post the competitive indices of events which take your fancy.

indices only.

you might even get help from one of the moderators here :whistle: with transferring appropriate material from the "how competitive do you want it to be" thread.

comments on the indices would be made or remain in the older hcdywitb thread.

you could post the CI of any event therein then wreak havoc by inserting annoying internal cross referencing links between this new thread, the existing CI thread, and the originating threads of the events which take your metric fancy.

for example

*****

[posted in woopti-do open thread]

i can't "post" or "comment" on a certain "something" here

but you can go hither (http://www.startersCI.log) or thither (http://www.HCDYWITB.cit) if your interest is sufficiently aroused.

*****

:devious:

eclectic

EGOR
24-05-2005, 06:04 AM
*restrains self due to the colourful words that i want to use*

Starter the competitive index rubbish is not helpful

Keep it in your competitiveness index thread.

I was very close to editing out the competitiveness index again but i will let that one slip through to the keeper.

HOWEVER In the future i will be deleting the post and NOT posting it to your competitive index thread.

So Keep that rubbish there.
I don't understand?
Bill asks a question, Starter gives an answer & the chess nut (a moderator?) can decide that he does not like the answer and just steps in and threatens to delet it? :hmm:

Duff McKagan
24-05-2005, 07:24 AM
That means 60 players who played at Nth Sydney did not play at Rose Bay. Of those 60 only 2 appear to be Nth Sydney members.

There goes my no brainer theory. But thanks for checking the lists to debunk it. But Bill, did you check this earlier before I posted the theory?

Cheers :)

ursogr8
24-05-2005, 08:03 AM
*restrains self due to the colourful words that i want to use*

Starter the competitive index rubbish is not helpful

Keep it in your competitiveness index thread.

I was very close to editing out the competitiveness index again but i will let that one slip through to the keeper.

HOWEVER In the future i will be deleting the post and NOT posting it to your competitive index thread.

So Keep that rubbish there.

TCN
You seem to be losing it mate.
With fg7 on part-time duties, and Matt run-out-of-town you must be finding the Moderator power an empty title.
So little to do, so little power to exercise.
If you are really looking for something useful to do I suggest you write to NOTORIOUS and StakesIsHigh and invite those two juniors back to the board since they got bludgeoned off by a senior poster here. That is what a MOD could be doing.


starter
----------------------------

hey starter,

;)

how about you start a thread perhaps entitled

STARTER'S COMPETITIVE INDEX LOG

at which you post the competitive indices of events which take your fancy.

indices only.

you might even get help from one of the moderators here :whistle: with transferring appropriate material from the "how competitive do you want it to be" thread.

comments on the indices would be made or remain in the older hcdywitb thread.

you could post the CI of any event therein then wreak havoc by inserting annoying internal cross referencing links between this new thread, the existing CI thread, and the originating threads of the events which take your metric fancy.

for example

*****

[posted in woopti-do open thread]

i can't "post" or "comment" on a certain "something" here

but you can go hither (http://www.startersCI.log) or thither (http://www.HCDYWITB.cit) if your interest is sufficiently aroused.

*****

:devious:

eclectic
Humorous my good friend 'e'.
But the convolutions that I have been associated with in the past (UCJ linking, GURU titles, & Articolo indeterminativo) have not been of my initiation. In each of these I was a defender, not a starter. ;)
So, I will pass up the good suggestion of yours.

starter
---------------------------------------

I don't understand?
Bill asks a question, Starter gives an answer & the chess nut (a moderator?) can decide that he does not like the answer and just steps in and threatens to delete it? :hmm:

EGOR

Thanks for the support.


It is odd that when a poster deletes his own post then a place-marker (or footprint) is left behind. But when a Mod deletes one of our posts there is no foot-print, and no courtesy PM advising of the deletion.


starter

Trent Parker
24-05-2005, 10:05 AM
I don't understand?
Bill asks a question, Starter gives an answer & the chess nut (a moderator?) can decide that he does not like the answer and just steps in and threatens to delet it? :hmm:

HI Egor

There is history in this topic:
There are many of us who think Starters CI is rubbish.

Read:
How competitive do you want it to be
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=229&page=1&pp=15

Poll:Should starter keep his competitiveness indexes in his competitiveness thread?
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1925

Then please comment...

Libby
24-05-2005, 01:38 PM
There is history in this topic:
There are many of us who think Starters CI is rubbish.

And there are others of us who find some of the unmoderated content here to be rubbish :rolleyes:

I really don't understand why the competitive index is such a source of angst? As I said elsewhere, it is made abundantly clear what the content of a CI post is about. If I am bored by it - I skip it. It barely registers a blip.

It could even be a way to fill the apparent vacuum until we have someone post a moderately controversial suggestion, or an out-and-out sledge of someone else, and we get the usual flurry of flaming & insults to read ;) . The shoutbox seems to have replaced posting.

Spiny Norman
24-05-2005, 01:58 PM
There are many of us who think Starters CI is rubbish.

True Obi-Wan ... but the job of the moderator is to enforce the rules of the board. If there is a ban on such "rubbish" then remove it and warn the poster not to re-offend. If they re-offend, ban them. Simple really.

If there's is no ban on the "rubbish", then the only function of the moderator is to ensure that it is on-topic and, if not, to move it to the appropriate area.

I like the CI stuff. I don't want to see it in every thread mind you, but it has its place in the panoply of chess chat topics.

If we're really going to start banning "rubbish", then there won't be much left to chat about will there? :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2005, 02:14 PM
There goes my no brainer theory. But thanks for checking the lists to debunk it. But Bill, did you check this earlier before I posted the theory?

Cheers :)I had checked it out in a general manner previously and I knew about 50% of those that played at Rose Bay had played at Nth Sydney. I also believed that at most around a half dozen players were Nth Sydney members.
However I did not check the exact numbers until I responded to you.

Garvinator
24-05-2005, 02:26 PM
It could even be a way to fill the apparent vacuum until we have someone post a moderately controversial suggestion, or an out-and-out sledge of someone else, and we get the usual flurry of flaming & insults to read ;) . The shoutbox seems to have replaced posting.
do you want someone to sledge you just so we all have something to read ;) :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2005, 02:28 PM
True Obi-Wan Hey hey Hey. Check out the avatar. :lol: :lol:

If there's is no ban on the "rubbish", then the only function of the moderator is to ensure that it is on-topic and, if not, to move it to the appropriate area.I did not see starters original post, so I am not sure if what TCN moved was the entirity of starters post. If what he moved was all that it consisted of then it contained no surrounding comment and seemed to lack any relevance.
However I think it was reasonable that it be in starters post #37 as it was obviously relevant to the point he was trying to make.

If we're really going to start banning "rubbish", then there won't be much left to chat about will there? :uhoh:Agreed.

Garvinator
24-05-2005, 02:50 PM
My records show that Rose Bay had 43 and 50 entries last year. Add the 34 for this year's Rose Bay tournament and the general numbers arent great.

Perhaps a new venue needs to be tried at a chess club venue, perhaps St George. I only suggested St George cause there information is mentioned on here.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2005, 04:01 PM
My records show that Rose Bay had 43 and 50 entries last year. Add the 34 for this year's Rose Bay tournament and the general numbers arent great.Over the past few years the overall numbers are better for Nth Sydney for the January and November weekenders as compared to the two weekenders at Rose Bay.

Perhaps a new venue needs to be tried at a chess club venue, perhaps St George. I only suggested St George cause there information is mentioned on here.Nth Sydney already is successful as a venue. As such I suspect if there was any movement next year away from Rose Bay it would likely be to Nth Sydney.

Garvinator
24-05-2005, 04:17 PM
Nth Sydney already is successful as a venue. As such I suspect if there was any movement next year away from Rose Bay it would likely be to Nth Sydney.
Was just thinking that might want to spread it around and try a different club that already has a chess club involved, but still that is a decision for the nswca and maybe clubs to make(if they want a tournament that is).

Libby
24-05-2005, 05:34 PM
do you want someone to sledge you just so we all have something to read ;) :whistle:

been done before ...

1min_grandmaster
24-05-2005, 05:34 PM
Some reasons I can think of why the turnout for the May Weekender were not as good as the January Weekender:

1) Venue. At North Sydney, there are more places to eat nearby. Rose Bay has a scenic view but most people like to go somewhere as a group and eat. Also, perhaps more people find it more convenient to get to North Sydney Leagues Club, because they are already members of that club, or perhaps that they are not but they have been there to play (such as during other inter-club competitions).

2) Time of year. More people have more time during January than during May, I think. For example, most universities have not begun semester yet, and possibly some schools too. I have no evidence for this, but it would be interesting to compare the turnouts of NSWCA weekenders during different months in the year; it might show that there are smaller turnouts during the middle of the year. In this comparison, it might be fairer to exclude weekenders that run on a long weekend, since this is another reason.

3) Public holiday. The January weekender was not run on a pubilc holiday, but it was close to Australia Day. So players would have been more willing to play since they have another day free. Playing in the May weekender means giving up your weekend and not having any free days for 12 days (for most people).

I didn't play in the May Weekender because I just happened to be busy on the Saturday. I didn't play in the January Weekender because I was in the Zonal.

Trent Parker
25-05-2005, 03:04 AM
True Obi-Wan ... but the job of the moderator is to enforce the rules of the board. If there is a ban on such "rubbish" then remove it and warn the poster not to re-offend. If they re-offend, ban them. Simple really.

If there's is no ban on the "rubbish", then the only function of the moderator is to ensure that it is on-topic and, if not, to move it to the appropriate area.

I like the CI stuff. I don't want to see it in every thread mind you, but it has its place in the panoply of chess chat topics.

If we're really going to start banning "rubbish", then there won't be much left to chat about will there? :uhoh:


And there are others of us who find some of the unmoderated content here to be rubbish :rolleyes:

I really don't understand why the competitive index is such a source of angst? As I said elsewhere, it is made abundantly clear what the content of a CI post is about. If I am bored by it - I skip it. It barely registers a blip.

It could even be a way to fill the apparent vacuum until we have someone post a moderately controversial suggestion, or an out-and-out sledge of someone else, and we get the usual flurry of flaming & insults to read ;) . The shoutbox seems to have replaced posting.

I don't want to Ban the Competitive index. It has its place..... In the Competitive index thread.

Hey Remember I had a poll on it?

I decided to create the poll after this comment by Bill in the zonal thread:

Must you post this rubbish in here.
Cant you keep it in your so called "competitive thread"

Should starter keep his competitiveness indexes in his competitiveness thread?
Results so far....
Yes: 1min_grandmaster, arosar, Belthasar, Bill Gletsos, garethbcharles, JGB, Paul S, pax, Skaro, skip to my lou, the chess nut
No: Cat, DuffMcKagan, ggrayggray
Don't Care: Frosty, kegless

......

Libby
25-05-2005, 11:07 AM
I don't want to Ban the Competitive index. It has its place..... In the Competitive index thread.

Hey Remember I had a poll on it?

Now there's the answer! Why on earth are we waiting to see if the Indonesian's convict Schapelle Corby? Channel 9 has already run the poll :rolleyes:


I decided to create the poll after this comment by Bill in the zonal thread:


Should starter keep his competitiveness indexes in his competitiveness thread?
Results so far....
Yes: 1min_grandmaster, arosar, Belthasar, Bill Gletsos, garethbcharles, JGB, Paul S, pax, Skaro, skip to my lou, the chess nut
No: Cat, DuffMcKagan, ggrayggray
Don't Care: Frosty, kegless

......

From what I can tell, the competitive index gives me the (sometimes self-evident I would think) measure of how more closely matched each round of an event may be - in statistical terms. It is most relevant to the event on which it comments, in my opinion.

I do not find it particularly interesting but it may have some merit in comparing the number of quality matches you might anticipate in one event over another.

In the end, I think it's harmless. If you want to start acting here on "poll" results then I hope everyone will be paying close attention to everything I say as the BB poster of the year ;)

Oh, and immediately moderating any piece of waffle, garbage, flaming, self-indulgent twaddle anyone comes up with in any thread which may not exactly meet the original topic should be the standard in future :whistle: (except for this post of course :P )

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 01:51 PM
True Obi-Wan ... but the job of the moderator is to enforce the rules of the board. If there is a ban on such "rubbish" then remove it and warn the poster not to re-offend. If they re-offend, ban them. Simple really.

If there's is no ban on the "rubbish", then the only function of the moderator is to ensure that it is on-topic and, if not, to move it to the appropriate area.

I like the CI stuff. I don't want to see it in every thread mind you, but it has its place in the panoply of chess chat topics.

If we're really going to start banning "rubbish", then there won't be much left to chat about will there? :uhoh:


Great post Frosty :clap:

And one that has led to publication of rules at this MODERATORS announcement. (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=58499&postcount=1)

There is no mention in the link about CIs being banned.
And further, the link discourages 'dragging', so that should ensure what I post stays-put.

Of course, as you intimate, CIs will only be in a small % of threads.


starter

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 01:56 PM
And further, the link discourages 'dragging', so that should ensure what I post stays-put.It is abundantly clear that when KB refers to 'dragging' he is talking about dragging posts from UCJ to here. As such you should not be taking things out of context as it simply detracts from your other claims.

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 02:06 PM
^^
Actually Bill, I was more thinking about all the debate about thread-splitting and its relationship to KB remark that "some posters do not like......."

But the type of 'dragging' you mention should also be included...in fact, it might even be my terminology has found its way into the announcement.


starter

(late edit)
Yes, on a second read of KB's announcemnt I can see where he says "Apart from the above" I misjudged thinking he was excluding UCJ...and then I focussed on the 'controversial' part of his para.

Now agree your interpretation probably what he meant.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 02:13 PM
^^
Actually Bill, I was more thinking about all the debate about thread-splitting and its relationship to KB remark that "some posters do not like......."KB's remark about "some posters do not like......" is in no way related to thread-splitting but is clearly referring to my copying of Matt's posts over to this board from UCJ.

But the type of 'dragging' you mention should also be included...in fact, it might even be my terminology has found its way into the announcement.The type of dragging I mentioned is definitely included in KB's announcement.
There is no indication as you are trying to imply that dragging something from one thread on here to another thread is part of KB's announcement.

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 02:17 PM
See my editted #72

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 02:24 PM
See my editted #72Ok. I had replied before you edited it.

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 02:43 PM
Np :cool:

I certainly don't want to .."simply detracts from your other claims"... ;)

I know how hard it is to earn credibility. :rolleyes:

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 05:11 PM
*restrains self due to the colourful words that i want to use*

<snip]

hi TCN

If you wanted to use some colourful words, here are a few suggestions on how you could have made yourself useful on this thread.

1 You could have responded on your President's post to comment on the low turn-out of 34.
2 You could have given us the benefit of a report on the event and the characters who did attend. I notice that UCJ has more than one report on the week-ender, and yet this cc.org thread is still bereft of a tournament report (the cross-table seems to be the limit of detail so far).
3 You could have commented on the two controversial issues raised in the UCJ reports.
4 You could have participated in the debate about the influence of venue on participation, now that that issue has emerged after my CI post.


So, rather than delete posts, and leaving the thread in the dark, what about telling us how this week-ender went from your point of view as xxth place-getter.

starter