PDA

View Full Version : Olympiad selections [2004]



Pages : [1] 2 3

chesslover
14-01-2004, 09:45 PM
Who will get selected for the Australian Olympiad squad this year?

Last time we had Rogers, Johansen, Lane, Wohl, Speck and Gluzman.

This year, I think that Rogers, Johansen and Lane are 100% sure of being selected.

Of the other 3 players chosen last year, I think Wohl will also make it, as he has had significant overseas experience, and has been a regular feature of the Australian squad, even though his Olympiad form is a little bit disapointing.

The other 2 spots are wide open. As the joint Australian Champ,Speck was I believe a good choice last year, but this year, Speck and Gluzman have not played in the Australian Champs. neither did Jean paul wallace. Smeardon I thought would have been a good chance, but he had a disapointing Australian Champs by his standard. Chapman, Tao, Solomon all I though played well in the Champs.

I am unsure who will get the last 2 spots, and the competition for that will be strong. I think the next major tournament, the Doberl, will provide a good indication of the current form of these contenders.

I wish that like laura moylan in the ffemale olympiad, we give a young male person one of the positions, and hope Zhao or Smeardon makes it. If Smeardon repeats his Doberl form of a coupleof years ago, where he beat both our GMs, he will make up for the recent Australian Champs form, and hopefully be in contention

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 01:03 AM
I won't be discussing the merits of players for selection just in case I get asked to be a selector again. I do think it's worth pointing out though, that last Olympiad we originally selected Wallace at board 4 (on tiebreak over Wohl who had the same vote tally), and Wallace's withdrawal paved the way for Gluzman (who had previously unsuccessfully appealled against Speck's selection at 6) to come into the side.

george
15-01-2004, 12:38 PM
Hi all,

I have had some discussions and will continue to discuss the appointment of a well credentialed Selection Coordinator for the Olympiad squad.

I am not going to be a selector so yes the two Grandmasters and Gary seem standouts. The other positions in the mens team are ????

In the Womens squad the two women who have recently changed countries and are eligible to play for Australia will I believe put pressure on the entire Women's Squad which is a fantastic thing.

First things first I have to find an experienced top player who will not be interested in going for the Olympiad themselves but who has the tenacity and desire to do a great job and withstand the anticipated political upsets which for some reason seems to accompany Olympiad Selections.

Regards
George Howard

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:39 PM
Hi all,

I have had some discussions and will continue to discuss the appointment of a well credentialed Selection Coordinator for the Olympiad squad.

I am not going to be a selector so yes the two Grandmasters and Gary seem standouts. The other positions in the mens team are ????

In the Womens squad the two women who have recently changed countries and are eligible to play for Australia will I believe put pressure on the entire Women's Squad which is a fantastic thing.

First things first I have to find an experienced top player who will not be interested in going for the Olympiad themselves but who has the tenacity and desire to do a great job and withstand the anticipated political upsets which for some reason seems to accompany Olympiad Selections.

Regards
George Howard

1. That arises a good point. What are the credintials to be a good olympic selector?

We know it should not be someone who plays for other olympiad countries ( :P ), but should it be someone one who will not playing in the current Olypiad may well be a candidate in future years, or someone who has played a lot and has retired from Olypiad selection (a Peter Parr or a Jamision for example) or should it be the team manager (jason, manuel etc)

2. I think Rogers, Johansen, Lane, Wohl for sure, with teh other 2 positions too close to call...maybe after the Doberl we will be better informed

3. As for the women who changed countries, do they have to be Australian citizens to play for Australia, or is merely being a resident here enough to enable you to play for Australia?

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 09:14 PM
We know it should not be someone who plays for other olympiad countries ( :P ), but should it be someone one who will not playing in the current Olypiad may well be a candidate in future years, or someone who has played a lot and has retired from Olypiad selection (a Peter Parr or a Jamision for example) or should it be the team manager (jason, manuel etc)
It cannot be a potential team captain due to possible conflict of interest.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 09:16 PM
CL, George here is only asking for applications for the post of Selection Co-Ordinator. This is a secretarial type task that does not involve any actual selection duties, but involves receiving + distributing relevant selection material to the relevant people, and tallying the votes of the selectors.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 09:21 PM
CL, George here is only asking for applications for the post of Selection Co-Ordinator. This is a secretarial type task that does not involve any actual selection duties, but involves receiving + distributing relevant selection material to the relevant people, and tallying the votes of the selectors.

if that is the case, then why ask for an "appointment of a well credentialed Selection Coordinator for the Olympiad squad"? If it is a secretarial role, any person can do it?

George may have different expectations for this role than you. After all George has asked for "an experienced top player who will not be interested in going for the Olympiad themselves". Most certainly does not seem like a secretarial role :?

george
15-01-2004, 09:43 PM
Hi All,

Certainly it has a major secretarial role but also the person has to keep faith with all parties - therefore experience diplomacy and someone who can give advice as to the choice of Selectors.

The person also needs to be familiar with the ACF by-laws to correctly implement the by-laws thus making the process transparent. The role is spelt out in ACF by-laws.

Regards
George Howard

Garvinator
15-01-2004, 09:44 PM
George may have different expectations for this role than you. After all George has asked for "an experienced top player who will not be interested in going for the Olympiad themselves". Most certainly does not seem like a secretarial role :?

i would take this to mean attempting to avoid a conflict of interest argument all the way down the line, remember how these selections are rather subjective, so it is wise to try and remove conflict of interest allegations as much as possible.

Ian Rout
15-01-2004, 09:58 PM
3. As for the women who changed countries, do they have to be Australian citizens to play for Australia, or is merely being a resident here enough to enable you to play for Australia?

The eligibility rules are in C.05 of the FIDE Handbook:

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=C05

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 10:11 PM
if that is the case, then why ask for an "appointment of a well credentialed Selection Coordinator for the Olympiad squad"? If it is a secretarial role, any person can do it?

George may have different expectations for this role than you. After all George has asked for "an experienced top player who will not be interested in going for the Olympiad themselves". Most certainly does not seem like a secretarial role :?

It is certainly a position which requires the admin skills and experience to avoid mistakes and get things done in time, as George says. The tasks involved can be politically sensitive as we have seen with the World Junior selection issues. I cannot see why a "top player" is necessarily required though - for instance Gary Bekker filled the role for the last Olympiad and his ACF rating is in the 1500s.

There is one part which is not "secretarial" in nature - which is to advise Council on the selection of selectors, if required. All I meant to say was that the selection Co-Ordinator doesn't have any direct input on picking the players.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 10:23 PM
3. As for the women who changed countries, do they have to be Australian citizens to play for Australia, or is merely being a resident here enough to enable you to play for Australia?

The eligibility rules are in C.05 of the FIDE Handbook:

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=C05

Thanks Ian for this :)

george
15-01-2004, 10:24 PM
Hi Kevin,

Your absolutely correct Kevin the Co-ordinator has no say in the selection of players - in fact the Council if it so wishes may override both the Selectors and Selections but correct me if I am wrong this has not been done.

The Council can take on the role of appointing selectors but this is something the Selection Co-ordinator usually takes on . Therefore he or she has to ask the selectors are they in fact thinking of nominating for the Olympiad Squad - top players may be reticent about divulging this unless they know the person and trust the person and this usually means smeone who they know on the chess scene ie a top player - but Kevin is right there is no real need for it to be a top player merely someone whom the top players respect.

Its my job to see the By-laws are implemented in the most faithful way and with the least upset to those whom are unfortunate in missing out - this obviously requires diplomacy on the part of Selection Co-ordinator myself and the Council.

Regards
George Howard

chesslover
15-01-2004, 10:29 PM
It is certainly a position which requires the admin skills and experience to avoid mistakes and get things done in time, as George says. The tasks involved can be politically sensitive as we have seen with the World Junior selection issues. I cannot see why a "top player" is necessarily required though - for instance Gary Bekker filled the role for the last Olympiad and his ACF rating is in the 1500s.

There is one part which is not "secretarial" in nature - which is to advise Council on the selection of selectors, if required. All I meant to say was that the selection Co-Ordinator doesn't have any direct input on picking the players.

Yes, I get your point now

and thus I agree with you, that you do not need a "top player" to do this job. It can be done by someone even in their 1200s as long as they have the integrity, acceptability, knowledge and diplomatic skills - as they will not be judging the players. I would have thought a chess administrator rather than a player would be the best suited :)

But I think like almost all selections there will still be upset people and controversy and debates :D

Even fi you think Wohl is not an automatic choice, given that Rogers, Johansen and Lane are in, that leaves just 3 spots open for our crop of talented candidates

george
15-01-2004, 10:56 PM
Hi All,

Just another point - the Open Team doesnt have to be all males.

Anyway must go regards all!!

George Howard

chesslover
15-01-2004, 11:47 PM
Hi All,

Just another point - the Open Team doesnt have to be all males.

Anyway must go regards all!!

George Howard

really!!

I did not know that women could also apply for the Open, though when I rethink this I realise that as women can enter Open events, there is really no impediments to women being selected for the Open team.

Thus rather than the Men's Olympiad team it should be the Open Olypiad team, and the women's Olympiad team...

Has any women ever nominated for the Open Olympiad team in Australia previously?

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 11:53 PM
Hi All,

Just another point - the Open Team doesnt have to be all males.

Anyway must go regards all!!

George Howard

really!!

I did not know that women could also apply for the Open, though when I rethink this I realise that as women can enter Open events, there is really no impediments to women being selected for the Open team.

Thus rather than the Men's Olympiad team it should be the Open Olypiad team, and the women's Olympiad team...
It has long been the Open Olympiad team and the Women's team.

Judith Polgar has many times played in the Open Olympiad team for Hungary.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 11:59 PM
It has long been the Open Olympiad team and the Women's team.

Judith Polgar has many times played in the Open Olympiad team for Hungary.

Bill, yes you are right of course.

My mistake in referring to the Open Olympiad as the Men's Olympiad, as all those who had been chosen had been Men's

To be frank I do not see the situation changing - and think that all 6 members of the Open Olmpiad will be men

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:04 AM
You messed up the nested quoting in your previous post.
I did not say what you attribute to me.
That was your post.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 12:08 AM
You messed up the nested quoting in your previous post.
I did not say what you attribute to me.
That was your post.

yes, sorry

went and fixed it up as soon as you brought it to my attention :oops:

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2004, 12:40 AM
George's post is correct - Council has final say on who the selectors are. Normally the selection co-ordinator will approach some and recommend them to Council which will then generally approve those selections.

Oepty
16-01-2004, 04:51 PM
Hello George. Can you please inform us who the 2 women are that have changed coutries recently? I guess you might be meaning Caoili and Sorokina, is this correct? If it is I can see that Laura Moylan is going to be struggling for a spot.
Also is there a activity requirement for players wishing to apply for Olympiad selection?
Scott

george
16-01-2004, 06:34 PM
hi Scott,

Its up to all the people concerned with Olympiad nomination to do so at the appropriate time if and when they wish.

Certainly though the competition for the Women's team will be very tough as will the Open Team.

Therefore you can be sure that people will not be picked on past performances but must be able to demonstrate very credible form this year which will be very good for Australian Tourneys this year as the top players try to reach peak form.

It is very early but the serious contenders are out there playing serious chess now - Irina is in India playing the Commonwealth Champs for instance getting top international match experience as you would expect last Olympiads No 1 . Australian womens player!!

Anyway nice to hear from you Scott - I have some chess emails to answer then I might take a break from this BB myself for a few days.

George Howard

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:52 PM
Hello George. Can you please inform us who the 2 women are that have changed coutries recently? I guess you might be meaning Caoili and Sorokina, is this correct? If it is I can see that Laura Moylan is going to be struggling for a spot.
Also is there a activity requirement for players wishing to apply for Olympiad selection?
Scott

I agree. I find it hard to see Laura making the women's team - especially if Caoili and Sorokina are also in contention. In fact other than feldman, the women's team is also wide open with the 3 positions going to be very hotly contested

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2004, 11:10 PM
Also is there a activity requirement for players wishing to apply for Olympiad selection?

No, that got abolished a few years back.

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:26 PM
These are the top 10 active players in Australia, at the last ACF ratings:

1. 2610!! 12 NSW Rogers, Ian [GM]
2. 2489!! 20 VIC Johansen, Darryl K [GM]
3. 2435!! 0 NSW Wallace, John-Paul [IM]
4. 2388! 0 VIC Gluzman, Michael [IM]
5. 2380! 7 NSW Lane, Gary W [IM]
6. 2363!! 34 QLD Solomon, Stephen J [IM]
7. 2352! 3 VIC Speck, Nicholas S
8. 2348!! 15 VIC Smerdon, David C [IM]
9. 2339!! 10 VIC Sandler, Leonid [IM]
10. 2330!! 28 VIC Froehlich, Peter [IM]

Wohl is no longer in the active list, and number 11 is Zong-Yuan Zhao (2327) and number 12 Depasquale (rating 2321)

Given that Rogers, Johansen and Lane are assured, the remaining 3 spots will probably come from the above players

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:31 PM
These the top 10 females in australia

1. 2180!! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2. 2134!! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
3. 2110! 6 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
4. 2056! 0 NSW Sarai, Slavica [WFM]
5. 2028! 0 SA Nguyen, Giang
6. 1981! 6 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
7. 1880!! 4 NSW Lip, Catherine [WFM]
8. 1862! 0 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
9. 1856! 0 WA Mills, Natalie
10. 1853! 9 NSW Klimenko, Veronica [WFM]

Number 11 is nancy lane with a rating fo 1793

It is most probable that teh 4 players chosen for the women's olympiad will come from these above players

last time it was feldman, phan-khosttinsky, dekic and moylan

This time except for Irena Feldman, the other 3 spots are all wide open.

I hope Moylan makes it, even though there are others rated above her, for she is number 8 woman in Australia, and is the only person to ever win a medal in the Olympiad, and for that latter reason I think she should be chosen

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:11 PM
I hope Moylan makes it, even though there are others rated above her, for she is number 8 woman in Australia, and is the only person to ever win a medal in the Olympiad, and for that latter reason I think she should be chosen
Are you sure that is correct.
I thought Johansen won a medal a few years back in an Olympiad.

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:52 PM
I hope Moylan makes it, even though there are others rated above her, for she is number 8 woman in Australia, and is the only person to ever win a medal in the Olympiad, and for that latter reason I think she should be chosen
Are you sure that is correct.
I thought Johansen won a medal a few years back in an Olympiad.

Meant in terms of the women olympiad, not the Open

Sorry was unclear in my posting

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 10:54 PM
why are you pushing the barrow of laura moylen so hard cl. it feels like you might have a vested interest in her selection :o

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:14 PM
why are you pushing the barrow of laura moylen so hard cl. it feels like you might have a vested interest in her selection :o

No this is just my personal opinion - I think laura should be in the women's team, due to her past achievements in the Olympiad

This is just like my personal opinion that Rogers, Johansen, Lane should all be in the men's squad, and I think Wohl, Speck (after his good tourney in Spain that was discussed in another thread), and Wallace (if available) should be in the Open team. Ironically if this came about, this would be the same team as the one that was ORIGINALLY selected for the last Olympiad!

bobby1972
19-01-2004, 08:47 AM
the selectors must be at least 2150+ aust rating so that they can make an inform choice based on chess, yes chess you dont go to the butcher to get your car fixed so ,a bunch of very strong chess players should decide who goes,also this chess players must be able to leave personal preference and go strickly on the CHESS which is what the chosen will be representing australia in ,yes very serious playing for australia,it deserves to get the strongest line up .

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 08:56 AM
I hope this isn't too far off topic.

In many other sports the rep teams are chosen by performance at national championships (I'm thinking swimming and track and field, etc).

Have we every chosen an olympic team based purely on performance in a qualification tournament?

Why not just send the top 6 from the Aust Champs?

bobby1972
19-01-2004, 09:02 AM
yeah that is best ,very good idea qualification tournament say the top 10 in the country .then no selectors just pure chess ability would decide who plays .scary pure chess talent no politics or selectors or personal biases just who plays the best chess people seem to forget this one.

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 09:02 AM
because quite often one player is not competing in the australian championships, like ian rogers from two years ago.

secondly the australian championships is just one tournament, an important tournament, but still only one tournament.

arosar
19-01-2004, 09:14 AM
But not everybody 'qualified' to play did or could have played in a given Aust Champ tourney. I suppose you could incentivise players to play here (i.e. big prize money, appearance fees, etc) - but that won't stop anyone, like GM Rogers, say, from playing in Wijk or some other more attractve tourn in Europe. (See also, Speck in Spain).

And what would you do if more than 2 players share a placing?

Finally, take the last Aus Champ. The top 6 would be: Lane, Rogers, Chapman, Tao, Solo, Bjelobrk. I mean you can't seriously ignore Johansen. So he had one bad tourn - so what?

AR

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:15 AM
because quite often one player is not competing in the australian championships, like ian rogers from two years ago.

If it was made a qualification event for the olympiad perhaps more top players would be encouraged to play.


secondly the australian championships is just one tournament, an important tournament, but still only one tournament.

True, and so is the olympiad.

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 09:16 AM
because quite often one player is not competing in the australian championships, like ian rogers from two years ago.

If it was made a qualification event for the olympiad perhaps more top players would be encouraged to play.


secondly the australian championships is just one tournament, an important tournament, but still only one tournament.

True, and so is the olympiad.

so are you saying that Ian rogers should have given up wijk van zee from two years ago(i understand that is where he was playing) to play in the australian championship?

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:17 AM
yeah that is best ,very good idea qualification tournament say the top 10 in the country .then no selectors just pure chess ability would decide who plays .scary pure chess talent no politics or selectors or personal biases just who plays the best chess people seem to forget this one.

Thanks for the compliment, but it was not my idea. Originally, I didn't like it at first, but I'm warming to it now. I mean if it can work for other sports, why not chess?

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:22 AM
so are you saying that Ian rogers should have given up wijk van zee from two years ago(i understand that is where he was playing) to play in the australian championship?

If hypothetically the Aust Champ was made a selection event for the olympiad and he wanted to play in the olympiad, then yes he'd have to compete.

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 09:26 AM
no sport i can think of has one tourney qualification, you mention athletics. if we use australia as an example, each athlete has to register either an A standard qualifying performance which guarantees olympic selection or a Bstandard qualifying performance and then they are at the mercy of Athletics australia if they go to the olympics.

these qualifying opportunities are held over a few weekends so the athletes have more than one opportunity to record a time/distance etc.

Swimming is a little more brutal in that they use 1 and 2 from each event to go to the olympics and this has come up for criticism in quite a few circles.

Rowing has just allowed Drew Ginn and James tompkins automatic entry to the olympics based on their win at the world championships, everyone else has to go through the qualification procedures.

i would be more in favour of a multi event format for qualification, but then this would favour nsw/vic players as they would have to travel less.

As it stands, if you play well in the aussie open/champs and a couple of other events like doebrel, then you stand a good chance to qualify for the olympiad.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:31 AM
But not everybody 'qualified' to play did or could have played in a given Aust Champ tourney. I suppose you could incentivise players to play here (i.e. big prize money, appearance fees, etc) - but that won't stop anyone, like GM Rogers, say, from playing in Wijk or some other more attractve tourn in Europe. (See also, Speck in Spain).

Yes, but they may change their decisions if olympiad selection was qualification based.


And what would you do if more than 2 players share a placing?

Tie-break by establish methods depending on the format of the champs.


Finally, take the last Aus Champ. The top 6 would be: Lane, Rogers, Chapman, Tao, Solo, Bjelobrk. I mean you can't seriously ignore Johansen. So he had one bad tourn - so what?

If olympiad selection hinged on the top 6 then perhaps the results of the tournament would have been different as there would still be something to play for.

But Oympiad selection is not the end of the world. It's just one Olympiad. It would be good if some other people were exposed to it based on their performance at the Aust Champ. It would be great if players Chapman, Tao and Bjelobrk got a go. As I said if it was an olympiad selection event you might have seen JP, Aleks and Nick playing which would have made for a better Aust Championship as well.

I'm not saying we should change horses mid-stream. No one was told that thee Aust Champs were going to be qualifiers for the Olympiad team. But it is something to consider for next time.

Saves a lot of arguments about selection bias, etc, etc, etc, and I think would make for a more competitive national championship.

shaun
19-01-2004, 09:38 AM
New Zealand has a mixed qualifying system that the ACF could look at.
The top 3 finishers in the NZ Championship are automatic selections for the Olympiad Team, while the selectors choose the rest.
Does it result in a better team? Not always. IM Ben Martin was a controversial omission from the 2002 team. Academic commitments kept him overseas and away from the championship, so he missed out on that chance of selection. Then he was overlooked by selectors based on his lack of overseas activity. As a result NZ probably had a weaker team than if he had been picked.
Does it result in a better NZ Championship? Probably, but you would have to ask the NZ'ers for a more accurate answer.
Would it work for Australia? I would say yes. If the top 3 finishers in the Aus Championship (and the 2 top finishers in the Aus Womens Championship) had automatic selection, then at least the players would have something definite to pin their selection hopes on. And noting that Nick Speck's selection in 2002 was based entirely on his equal first in the Australian Championship, formalise what is already an informal understanding amongst (some) selectors.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 10:10 AM
As it stands, if you play well in the aussie open/champs and a couple of other events like doebrel, then you stand a good chance to qualify for the olympiad.

Is that good enough? There is always going to be disputes about (non) selection.

You could have a number of events with a grand prix style scoring system but this might disadvantage players like Chapman who has to do more travelling to get to these events.

That's why I like just the one event when all the top players should care enough to compete. The Aust Champs. After all that is the big one.

The Doeberl and equivalents in other states and territories are good, but they are essentially weekenders and should not (IMHO) be given too much weight.

Ian Rout
19-01-2004, 10:33 AM
Around here the Michael Diamond case is getting a bit of publicity, as it happened in Queanbeyan. If it isn't being reported elsewhere, Diamond is up before the beak for alleged assault and not locking up his firearm. His gun licence has been suspended pending the hearing and so he can't compete in the Olympic selection trials.

Although the precise circumstances are unlikely to be repeated in chess, it's an illustration of the way you can paint yourself into a corner by hanging everything on one event.

On paper taking the top x from the Aust Championship is at least objective, but when you look more deeply a whole host of decisions which ultimately contribute to the outcome, such as the format, timing, eligibility to compete, arbiter's decision in a key game etc etc are made by a committee and not on the board, so its just pushing the subjectivity down the line.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 10:50 AM
New Zealand has a mixed qualifying system that the ACF could look at.
The top 3 finishers in the NZ Championship are automatic selections for the Olympiad Team, while the selectors choose the rest.

Sounds like a good compromise. Although I think 4/2 or 5/1 might be better. ;)

jase
19-01-2004, 11:30 AM
I think it would be crazy to base our entire Olympiad squad on one tournament.

Based on selections over the past 10 years I think the selectors do an outstanding job, including giving our National Championships due weight. The selectors are provided with all results dating back about 2 years. The task of a selector is to interpret this information, not to be a top chess player. The ACF usually endeavours to include on the selection panel a former Olympiad player, which is sensible.

In the mid-90's a young Trevor Tao was a bolt from the blue, finishing very highly in the 93/94 Australian Championships, as an unrated player. He subsequently made the Olympiad team.

Nick Speck returned to chess after a lengthy layoff to tie with Johansen in 2001/2, with this result getting him onto the team.

Gary Lane is now universally considered a moral for board 3 after his Championship success. A month ago he was regarded as in the mix, borderline, probably not in the top 6 of too many good judges after his inglorious Olympiad performance of 2002.

I think Chapman is now in the mix after his performance in Adelaide. However he will need to back it up at another strong tournament like the Masters or Doeberl.

I agree that making the Australian Championships a selection trial would make it a stronger event, however I would prefer that we encourage the our players to compete overseas. This is the only way we will create more GMs, and with many of our top players now working as chess coaches, this extended school break is their best opportunity to head for Europe.

I think in the US their National Champion is guaranteed selection. Perhaps ans an incentive and a reward, this is reasonable. But having a player miss out because they were tied 3rd with 4 other players, and their Bucholtz was 0.5 points lower? Please.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 12:08 PM
Ah, finally some sanity is prevailing.

Good post Jase. :)

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 12:39 PM
I think it would be crazy to base our entire Olympiad squad on one tournament.

I repeat: the Olympiad is also, just one tournament.


Based on selections over the past 10 years I think the selectors do an outstanding job, including giving our National Championships due weight. The selectors are provided with all results dating back about 2 years. The task of a selector is to interpret this information, not to be a top chess player. The ACF usually endeavours to include on the selection panel a former Olympiad player, which is sensible.

How do you measure the performance of the selectors?


I agree that making the Australian Championships a selection trial would make it a stronger event, however I would prefer that we encourage the our players to compete overseas. This is the only way we will create more GMs, and with many of our top players now working as chess coaches, this extended school break is their best opportunity to head for Europe.

The Aust Champ is only 2 weeks out of every 2 years, not as onerous as playing (and playing well) is several tournaments, some of which are weekend swisses.


I think in the US their National Champion is guaranteed selection. Perhaps ans an incentive and a reward, this is reasonable. But having a player miss out because they were tied 3rd with 4 other players, and their Bucholtz was 0.5 points lower? Please.

At least Buchholtz is objective and transparent. Every second year there are players who feel that their selection was overlooked due to some bias of the selection panel.

Which is really better?

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 12:45 PM
On paper taking the top x from the Aust Championship is at least objective, but when you look more deeply a whole host of decisions which ultimately contribute to the outcome, such as the format, timing, eligibility to compete, arbiter's decision in a key game etc etc are made by a committee and not on the board, so its just pushing the subjectivity down the line.

I agree but all these factors are already in the system. Selectors might be able to "make allowances" for them, but there is no way of guaranteeing that they do so accurately, so really you are just adding more subjectivity to an already impure system.

The fact that a system contains subjective elements cannot be used as an argument against an objective selection mechanism, can it?

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 12:51 PM
I think it would be crazy to base our entire Olympiad squad on one tournament.

I repeat: the Olympiad is also, just one tournament.
Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
You want your best players playing in the olympiad.
Who are the best can be determined much better from analysing recent tournament results instead of picking them based on just their results in one tournament.



I think in the US their National Champion is guaranteed selection. Perhaps ans an incentive and a reward, this is reasonable. But having a player miss out because they were tied 3rd with 4 other players, and their Bucholtz was 0.5 points lower? Please.

At least Buchholtz is objective and transparent. Every second year there are players who feel that their selection was overlooked due to some bias of the selection panel.


Which is really better?
One players tie-break can be better based on a number of factors not always under the players control.
Also just because they feel there is bias does not mean there was any.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 01:08 PM
Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
You want your best players playing in the olympiad.
Who are the best can be determined much better from analysing recent tournament results instead of picking them based on just their results in one tournament.

Au contraire. This is relevant on at least two levels.

Firstly, while important is really is only one tournament. It goes for a couple of weeks and then it is over. No one is going to lose the station based on not making the olympiad team.

The sense I really meant was that, basing the selection on one tournament may help to select player who perform on big occasions. The Olympiad and the Aust Champ only comes around once every 2 years. You need to perform on the day, not say, yeah, put in a few bad games but I'll still get selected based on a good performance at the Doeberl.


One players tie-break can be better based on a number of factors not always under the players control.
Also just because they feel there is bias does not mean there was any.

Accusations don't confirm or deny existence of bias. However, a subjective process is always going to be open to accusation. Occasionally these accusations can take some effort to resolve.

I think if someone missed out due to a 0.5 deficit in a Buchholtz tiebreak for 6th/7th place then it would be more readily accepted and everyone would just get on with their lives.

peanbrain
19-01-2004, 02:54 PM
I think if someone missed out due to a 0.5 deficit in a Buchholtz tiebreak for 6th/7th place then it would be more readily accepted and everyone would just get on with their lives.

I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc. Afterall, if the players missed out selection are suggesting their non-selection is due to some subjective measures then their own complaints are subjective - as there is no way of proving if they would have performed better or worse over the selected players.

As long as ACF can demonstrate they have done their best to ensure the selectors has track record of unbiased selection then I believe any appeals or intention to apperal are just sour grapes. Its like going to job interviews - while all applicants know that they are capable of doing the job and should be given the opportunity, at the end of the day it is the employer who has viewed all potential applicants and picked the ones they believe are going to do the best job.

By all means come up with an agreed list of selection criteria before the selection, but once the selection is made there should be no appeals. There is always next year so missing out one year is not life or death situation to warrent endless complaints and appeals. If we accept chess is a sport then we should accept good sportmanship is also part of any competitive sport.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 03:05 PM
I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc. Afterall, if the players missed out selection are suggesting their non-selection is due to some subjective measures then their own complaints are subjective - as there is no way of proving if they would have performed better or worse over the selected players.

I don't know that appeals within the ACF prescribed process is the problem. Certainly the Depasquale case was testing the system in the legal courts. I don't think it would be within the power of the ACF to stop someone taking them to a court of law.

However, if the selection criteria was clear and objective, it should significantly reduce the chance of anyone doing so.


By all means come up with an agreed list of selection criteria before the selection, but once the selection is made there should be no appeals. There is always next year so missing out one year is not life or death situation to warrent endless complaints and appeals. If we accept chess is a sport then we should accept good sportmanship is also part of any competitive sport.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. :rolleyes:

paulb
19-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Regarding "no appeals" I believe the ACF has had some legal advice about this, in part from chess-playing lawyers. I'm not sure of the technicalities of this but I'd have to agree with the above writer that if it can be done (banning appeals) then it should. Appeals dramas can consume a huge amount of time and energy that's much better spent elsewhere imho.

arosar
19-01-2004, 03:36 PM
You need to perform on the day, not say, yeah, put in a few bad games but I'll still get selected based on a good performance at the Doeberl.

How is the above any different to: "Yeah, put in a few bad games but I'll get selected based on a good performance at the Aust Championships"?

AR

arosar
19-01-2004, 03:40 PM
. . . I'm not sure of the technicalities of this but I'd have to agree with the above writer that if it can be done (banning appeals) then it should.

Just do what can be done. Remove the appeals mechanism from the ACF By-Laws. Bazza may be right: that anyone intent on appealing can use the courts. This is sad. But so what? I'm no lawyer, but didn't the case against Depasquale set a precedent for the ACF's defence anyway? And the way I see it, anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 03:41 PM
How is the above any different to: "Yeah, put in a few bad games but I'll get selected based on a good performance at the Aust Championships"?

Come on Amiel, think about it and get back to me if you still think you have a point.

arosar
19-01-2004, 03:49 PM
You're weaving your hocus-pocus again, ain't ya?

AR

peanbrain
19-01-2004, 03:50 PM
anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Agree with you 120% AR. In fact, ban them from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating so they come back as unrated after the ban. We should have done this to the last person that took ACF to court for wasting our membership fund to defend such stupid case in court. :twisted:

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 03:55 PM
anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Agree with you 120% AR. In fact, ban them from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating so they come back as unrated after the ban. We should have done this to the last person that took ACF to court for wasting our membership fund to defend such stupid case in court. :twisted:
Actually if I recall correctly we were awarded court costs and our legal team did not charge us for their services.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 04:59 PM
You're weaving your hocus-pocus again, ain't ya?

If by weaving your hocus-pocus you mean applying logic, then yes - guilty as charged. ;)

chesslover
19-01-2004, 05:36 PM
I hope this isn't too far off topic.

In many other sports the rep teams are chosen by performance at national championships (I'm thinking swimming and track and field, etc).

Have we every chosen an olympic team based purely on performance in a qualification tournament?

Why not just send the top 6 from the Aust Champs?

while your idea has merits, I think that choosing all 6 of the Open and 4 of teh women by the one tournament, penalises people who do have a poor tourament (witness Smeardon and Johansen in the Aust champs), or who cannot make it (witness Speck playing in Spain).

A couple of modifications to your idea for the Open team

1. Maybe having the top 2 from the Aust Champs getting automatic qualification - so that people who win the tournament know that if they are in the final 2 they get automatic selection

2. Also maybe having the top person (or two?) from the Grand Prix circuit getting the automatic selection as well.? That will promote the grand prix circuit, and australian chess scene

For the women's team, have the similar, but instead making it the highest ranking women in the Aust Champs. and the leading female in the grand prix get the selecttion?

A couple of thoughts on the selection..

chesslover
19-01-2004, 05:41 PM
secondly the australian championships is just one tournament, an important tournament, but still only one tournament.

True, and so is the olympiad.

Agree with you barry

and the most important and most popular sports event in the planet, the soccer world cup, is still one tournament

The second most popular and most important sports event in the planet, the Olympics, is still one tournament

the third most popular and most important event in the planet, the Rugby World Cup, is still one tournament

The most important cricket event, the Cricket World Cup is still one tournament

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 05:41 PM
I think it would be crazy to base our entire Olympiad squad on one tournament.

So do I and this is such an absolute no-brainer I can barely understand why it is even being debated. Suppose Australia at some point has a 2650-rated GM who has moved here from overseas and meets the residency requirements. This guy is streeting the field in the Aus Champs, a point ahead of the pack on 6.5/7, when on the rest day he decides to try his hand at this curious Aussie pasttime called "cricket". While attempting this he falls and is injured, taken to hospital and not allowed out for the remaining 4 days. [This last bit based on a true story, as at least one of our posters will know from bitter experience.] He finishes seventh on 6.5/11 and misses the Olympiad team. Nice one.

Selecting on one event come hell or high water is the kind of thing they do in swimming and athletics. I don't know if they do it because they're lazy, because they have no idea how to rank different performers, or because they figure that being injured for the trials is a good predictor of being injured for the Olympics too, but I can't see any use for this kind of approach in chess.

Also, while this year's top 6 in the Aus Champs had the top 6 PRs of those playing, there's no guarantee in a Swiss that such will be the case.

Whether some number of positions should be picked on results, though, is a different story. We had someone from Canada mentioning their system not long ago. I'd be opposed to any changes in the run-up to the coming Olympiad, if you're going to change the selection system I believe it should always be done as early in the cycle as possible.


I repeat: the Olympiad is also, just one tournament.

True. But we have a current aim to do as well there as possible. If we want to change to a system based on Aus Champs results maybe our first step should be to rewrite the by-laws so that they say that the aims of Olympiad selection are "to encourage participation in the Aus Champs and cut down on squabbles on the bulletin board" or something like that. :P


Regarding "no appeals" I believe the ACF has had some legal advice about this, in part from chess-playing lawyers.

We have - the advice is that appeals are unnecessary. Indeed the recent Junior selections mess showed that even with appeals there is still some risk of it ending up in court - though appeals greatly reduce the risk of it going there and increase the chance of any error that might lose us a court case being found first.



Just do what can be done. Remove the appeals mechanism from the ACF By-Laws. Bazza may be right: that anyone intent on appealing can use the courts. This is sad. But so what? I'm no lawyer, but didn't the case against Depasquale set a precedent for the ACF's defence anyway?

Sort-of (actually I think there were already precedents that could be and were used). But if there was a grave procedural error it would be different territory to what was covered in this case.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 05:46 PM
But Oympiad selection is not the end of the world. It's just one Olympiad. It would be good if some other people were exposed to it based on their performance at the Aust Champ.

Saves a lot of arguments about selection bias, etc, etc, etc, and I think would make for a more competitive national championship.

barry, I agree with your points about the Aust champs being used as an automatic qualifier to the Olympiad, but think that not all Open and Women players should be selected from it - I think maybe 2 men and 1 woman is fine. :)

But as for "olympiad selection not being the end of the world - it's just one olympiad" statement :? , i think you are wrong

The most important chess event in the world is the World Champs (the offical one from FIDE)

The second most important chess event in the world is the Olympiad - so an Olympiad is a BIG DEAL

chesslover
19-01-2004, 05:50 PM
New Zealand has a mixed qualifying system that the ACF could look at.
The top 3 finishers in the NZ Championship are automatic selections for the Olympiad Team, while the selectors choose the rest.

Would it work for Australia? I would say yes. If the top 3 finishers in the Aus Championship (and the 2 top finishers in the Aus Womens Championship) had automatic selection, then at least the players would have something definite to pin their selection hopes on. And noting that Nick Speck's selection in 2002 was based entirely on his equal first in the Australian Championship, formalise what is already an informal understanding amongst (some) selectors.

This is what I stated too, before I read your posts :)

Only difference to maybe improve on your sugesstion, is maybe having 2 automatic selection from the champs, and maybe having the grand prix winner also having an automatci entry for the Open side, and then choosing the other 3 spots...

peanbrain
19-01-2004, 05:54 PM
New Zealand has a mixed qualifying system that the ACF could look at.
The top 3 finishers in the NZ Championship are automatic selections for the Olympiad Team, while the selectors choose the rest.

Would it work for Australia? I would say yes.

This is what I stated too, before I read your posts :)

Only difference to maybe improve on your sugesstion, is maybe having 2 automatic selection from the champs, and maybe having the grand prix winner also having an automatci entry for the Open side, and then choosing the other 3 spots...

Care to share with us how successful (or otherwise!) of the New Zealand Olympiad Team?! :?

chesslover
19-01-2004, 05:54 PM
I think it would be crazy to base our entire Olympiad squad on one tournament.

Based on selections over the past 10 years I think the selectors do an outstanding job, including giving our National Championships due weight.

I agree that making the Australian Championships a selection trial would make it a stronger event, however I would prefer that we encourage the our players to compete overseas. This is the only way we will create more GMs, and with many of our top players now working as chess coaches, this extended school break is their best opportunity to head for Europe.

I think in the US their National Champion is guaranteed selection. Perhaps ans an incentive and a reward, this is reasonable. But having a player miss out because they were tied 3rd with 4 other players, and their Bucholtz was 0.5 points lower? Please.

But I think that since the idea was first mooted by Barry, it has moved on to not selecting the ENTIRE squad, but selecting SOME of the squad as automatic qualifiers from the Australian Champs - maybe as little as one and a maximum of half the squad...

That way the selectors can choose those who had a bad Aust champs, and give consideration to the overseas experience, past performance in the Olypiad etc etc

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 05:55 PM
or who cannot make it (witness Speck playing in Spain).

"cannnot" make it? Sounds to me more like he chose to play in Spain in preference - anyone know?


2. Also maybe having the top person (or two?) from the Grand Prix circuit getting the automatic selection as well.? That will promote the grand prix circuit, and australian chess scene

I don't think this is wise. The GP circuit has all kinds of geographical biases in where events are held that make it harder or easier for some players than others to get the 5 events desirable for max points. If you want to promote the GP with rewards like this, qualification for the Aus Champs (as did at one stage happen) would be more worth looking into.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 06:02 PM
I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc.

Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture

peanbrain
19-01-2004, 06:10 PM
I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc.

Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture

Gee that wasn't so hard to bait you was it?
If you believe in god you would accepted tht if god wanted you to go to the olympiad, he would have made sure you got selected the first time round. None of this appeals crap.

As long as we have a transparent selection criteria and process, there is no need for appeal. What happens when some sore loser is still not happy after the decision of the appeal?? Do we have an appeals procedure to appeal the outcome of an appeal just to make sure?! where does it end?? #-o

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 06:31 PM
I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc.

Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture

Gee that wasn't so hard to bait you was it?
If you believe in god you would accepted tht if god wanted you to go to the olympiad, he would have made sure you got selected the first time round. None of this appeals crap.

As long as we have a transparent selection criteria and process, there is no need for appeal. What happens when some sore loser is still not happy after the decision of the appeal?? Do we have an appeals procedure to appeal the outcome of an appeal just to make sure?! where does it end?? #-o

im not going to answer anything about appeals as i have stated my opinion previously and i dont understand why this is being debated again ](*,)

why i have replied is that it would end in the courts, i thought that was obvious

chesslover
19-01-2004, 06:39 PM
. . . I'm not sure of the technicalities of this but I'd have to agree with the above writer that if it can be done (banning appeals) then it should.

RUBBISH :x :evil:

Any person who does not get selected, can take the ACF to teh court. There is NOTHING that stops them from doing so. Winning the appeal of course is another matter entirely.

Having an appeal process in the ACF, will actually reduce the chance of us ghaving to go to courts - somnething that is far more time consuming, stressful and financially expensive to us.

In addition, having an appeals process ensures that people who offer themself for selection are confident that the selection process will be fair, transparent and accountable, and give great confidence and integrity to the selection process :idea:

I am surprised that a rabid liberal like you, would agree to this step, which essentially reduces fairness and accountability in the process

Shame Mr Forum Admin Shame :(

chesslover
19-01-2004, 06:47 PM
anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Agree with you 120% AR. In fact, ban them from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating so they come back as unrated after the ban. We should have done this to the last person that took ACF to court for wasting our membership fund to defend such stupid case in court. :twisted:

You are a complete and utter moron....I thought that matt was an idiot, but compared to you, he is an einstien. You surely must be the stupidest poster that has ever posted in this BB :x :evil: :x :evil:

How DARE you victimise and blackball someone who is simply exercising their DEMOCRATIC rights? You have no right to do that, or even suggest that

Any person has the right to appeal if they feel that they were hard done by. To then say that that person should be then hounded and driven out of chess is evil, and shows what morally bankrupt people you two are :x :evil: Why should a person be punished for exercising their DEMOCRATIC right to take the ACF to the court, because they feel hard done by? that is SCUMBAG behaviour

An appeal process that is within the auspices of the ACF, will reduce the need for a judicial appeal process, and enable any readily identifiable errors to be rectified quickly.

This is like when your boss is unfair, and you complain about the boss, and then the boss victimises you fo rmaking your DEMOCRATIC right to complain - this is pure EVIL in action, and is unjust, unfair, and uncorrect

arosar
19-01-2004, 06:50 PM
chesslover .... man calm down. I knew you'd get all hyper over the 'appeals' issue.

AR

chesslover
19-01-2004, 06:59 PM
or who cannot make it (witness Speck playing in Spain).

"cannnot" make it? Sounds to me more like he chose to play in Spain in preference - anyone know?


2. Also maybe having the top person (or two?) from the Grand Prix circuit getting the automatic selection as well.? That will promote the grand prix circuit, and australian chess scene

I don't think this is wise. The GP circuit has all kinds of geographical biases in where events are held that make it harder or easier for some players than others to get the 5 events desirable for max points. If you want to promote the GP with rewards like this, qualification for the Aus Champs (as did at one stage happen) would be more worth looking into.

1. Does it matter, if Speck could not make it, or chose to forgo the Aust Champs to play in Spain?

His performance in Spain was Specktacular! :P , and as posters admitted in the thread on that topic was very very creditable. Hence I would think that based on his performance, the strong tournament with GMs and IMs there, he fully justified his place in the Open Olympiad team. I know you cannot comment on Speck due to the fact that you may be a possible selector, but his not playing in the Aust Champs (especially when there is no rule about players needing to play in the Aust champs to be eligible) is not a big factor, especially considering his performance in Spain.

It was a big gamble for Speck, that paid off, for if he had a horrible tournament in such a strong tournament, his chances would have been significantly eroded, and he also would have put off a lot of people by not playing in the Aust champs

2. The grandprix is essentially the Australian chess "premiership" - with tournaments being played by anyone for grand prix points. It is the equivalent of the F1 championship, and the soccer league.

By making the winner of the Australian grandprix series an automatic entry, we will be encouraging more and more tournaments for inclusion in the grand prix circuit, and also encourage all those who have aspirations to play in the Olympiad from competing in the grandprix circuit. Both of these will be of benefit to australian chess, and club players who can see high quality australian IMs and GMs playing with them in weekenders for the vital grand prix points, that will give them automatci entry to the Olympiad

chesslover
19-01-2004, 07:05 PM
As long as we have a transparent selection criteria and process, there is no need for appeal. What happens when some sore loser is still not happy after the decision of the appeal?? Do we have an appeals procedure to appeal the outcome of an appeal just to make sure?! where does it end?? #-o

No, it is obvious what will happen. If you chose to exercise that pea sized brain of yours, it is not hard to find out the answer to your question.

You have an ACF appeal commitee that will look at the appeal claim by the aggrieved party. If the ACF appeals commitee does not agree that the claims has merit, then the applicant has the option of taking it to the court.

However if there is no appeal, then any person will take it to the court, or those who cannot afford to (but have a legitimate claim) will not take it to the court because of the expense.

An appeals commitee by the ACF will ebsure that the "fair and transparent" selection process for selection has been followed, and will give greater assurance of this fact.

A no appeal of selection decision, essentially hurts those chess players who have no monet, while the rich (like always) will be fine as they can take the ACF to the court.

peanbrain
19-01-2004, 07:19 PM
chesslover .... man calm down. I knew you'd get all hyper over the 'appeals' issue.

AR

AR - we'd better lay off CL for a while, he is still recovering from his flu and is a bit upset that he missed his appointment with god yesterday.

CL - speaking of appeals, how are you getting on at work after you made your appeal to your manager's manager? Did it fix your problem by exercising your DEMOCRATIC right, or are you taking your manager and his managers to court?

jase
19-01-2004, 07:19 PM
The Grand prix has always had illusions about being a chess premiership, but it is not.

Some States have hardly any tournaments, there is a heavy geographical bias towards the Eastern States, and whilst I support the Grand Prix, I prefer the current system to betsowing a place upon the winner of 5 little weekenders.

Chesslover, would you like the URL for Australia's peak sporting bodies so you can explain to them how unfair, unaccountable, and lacking in integrity they are? They obviously just don't get it! Or maybe they're quite experienced at selecting individuals and teams for elite competition and understand that facilitating appeals just encourages them?

I agree with peanbrain that if the process is transparent then there is no need for the ACF to have an appeals process.

And as Kevin states, the ACF was strongly advised to fall in line with other sporting bodies and remove the appeals process from its by-laws.

Speck is not in the team yet. His result brings him into the equation. As does the results of Chapman, and maybe even Tao. Speck plays Gibraltar next, hopefully he does well.

[/i]

Ian Rout
19-01-2004, 07:22 PM
2. The grandprix is essentially the Australian chess "premiership" - with tournaments being played by anyone for grand prix points. It is the equivalent of the F1 championship, and the soccer league.


No, it is essentially for the "Common Man" as someone else would say. It has fast time limits, four rounds in a day, games between players 1000 points apart, often noisy venues. It is the equivalent of a Fun Run.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 07:31 PM
Chesslover, would you like the URL for Australia's peak sporting bodies so you can explain to them how unfair, unaccountable, and lacking in integrity they are? They obviously just don't get it! Or maybe they're quite experienced at selecting individuals and teams for elite competition and understand that facilitating appeals just encourages them?

I agree with peanbrain that if the process is transparent then there is no need for the ACF to have an appeals process.

And as Kevin states, the ACF was strongly advised to fall in line with other sporting bodies and remove the appeals process from its by-laws.

[/i]

with the greatest of respect (and I do have a lot of respect for you for the organising of teh QVB tourney, and the sponsorship that you got for the women Olypiad team) I diagree with you.

Just because others are doing it, is not an arguement that we should do it. If everyone fell off the cliff, would you also do it? of course not. We are supposed to be the clever sport, yet we are following what others are doing - we should do what is just and right and correct for australian chess, nto what is correct for cricket, league or AFL.

And what is correct for a physcial sport is not correct for an individual based mind sport like chess

chesslover
19-01-2004, 07:33 PM
2. The grandprix is essentially the Australian chess "premiership" - with tournaments being played by anyone for grand prix points. It is the equivalent of the F1 championship, and the soccer league.


No, it is essentially for the "Common Man" as someone else would say. It has fast time limits, four rounds in a day, games between players 1000 points apart, often noisy venues. It is the equivalent of a Fun Run.

Yes, I accept the validity of your point

Maybe what we need, in addition to another thread :) :P , is a reorganisation of the gp - so that the littler weekenders for the common man whilsyt included in the grandprix circuit have lesser significance than the important tourneys like the Doberl , and the points reflect the gap in quality

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 08:23 PM
So do I and this is such an absolute no-brainer I can barely understand why it is even being debated. Suppose Australia at some point has a 2650-rated GM who has moved here from overseas and meets the residency requirements. This guy is streeting the field in the Aus Champs, a point ahead of the pack on 6.5/7, when on the rest day he decides to try his hand at this curious Aussie pasttime called "cricket". While attempting this he falls and is injured, taken to hospital and not allowed out for the remaining 4 days. [This last bit based on a true story, as at least one of our posters will know from bitter experience.] He finishes seventh on 6.5/11 and misses the Olympiad team. Nice one.

Quite a sorry tale but quite a long-winded anecdotal way of saying "We might not send an obviously strong player who could not play in the Aust Champs through no fault of his own."

I admit this is a risk.


Selecting on one event come hell or high water is the kind of thing they do in swimming and athletics. I don't know if they do it because they're lazy, because they have no idea how to rank different performers, or because they figure that being injured for the trials is a good predictor of being injured for the Olympics too, but I can't see any use for this kind of approach in chess.

I think they do it because they believe reward for results provides the sort of motivation all the way down the sporting hierarchy that encourages elite atheletes to emerge.


Also, while this year's top 6 in the Aus Champs had the top 6 PRs of those playing, there's no guarantee in a Swiss that such will be the case.

True. However PR are little more than mathematical novelties. I'd be just as inclined to put faith in Buchholtz as PRs. So if the top 6 places hadn't had the top 6 PRs my answer would have been,"so what?"


Whether some number of positions should be picked on results, though, is a different story. We had someone from Canada mentioning their system not long ago. I'd be opposed to any changes in the run-up to the coming Olympiad, if you're going to change the selection system I believe it should always be done as early in the cycle as possible.

Yes, this is a compromise position which is also worth considering. It is certain a step in the direction of totally objective and transparent selection.


True. But we have a current aim to do as well there as possible. If we want to change to a system based on Aus Champs results maybe our first step should be to rewrite the by-laws so that they say that the aims of Olympiad selection are "to encourage participation in the Aus Champs and cut down on squabbles on the bulletin board" or something like that. :P

Hey, don't cruxify me for pointing out advantageous byproducts of the proposal.

Is the objective to do as well as possible at the next olympiad or to do as well as possible at the olympiad in 10 years time? Perhaps by introducing a transparent selection process with obvious reward for performance will inspire the future champs to greater things.

However, you will notice my original post I asked a question which everyone seems to have ignored. :(


Have we every chosen an olympic team based purely on performance in a qualification tournament?

Judging by the lack of response on this question I guess the answer is no.


Why not just send the top 6 from the Aust Champs?

There have been lots of debate on this question. Yes, they may be situations when we don't send the absolute strongest team on any particular year, but I don't believe this is the be all and end all. The important thing is for Australia to become a stronger chess playing country over time. To do that perhaps we need to give people more incentive.

So I think removing selectors from the olympiad equation is something worth debating. I've certainly found the comments interesting. However, I don't think there has been a killer argument which renders the issue of selecting entirely on performance at one event a "no-brainer". Of course it is a radical change an unlikely to happen in one step but guaranteeing some places based on say the first 4 spots in the Championship would be a good start.

While I have discovered is that performance at single tourny style selection is outside the comfort zone of a lot of tournament organisers, I wonder what the playing elite think. I think the highest rated player to comment so far has been bobby1972 who seemed to like the idea. (but then again he is one of those strange MCC-types :) ) However, we are still talking sub-2000. It would be good to get the opinion of people who would be realistically vynig for an olympic team place. Perhaps a survey of all active players rated over 2150 would be interesting.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 08:31 PM
barry,

are you and admin in this forum too like the Grand Poobah? I thought I saw your name lit up in the orange admin color when you logged in? :?:

Ian Rout
19-01-2004, 08:44 PM
However, we are still talking sub-2000. It would be good to get the opinion of people who would be realistically vynig for an olympic team place. Perhaps a survey of all active players rated over 2150 would be interesting.

I would think a fair few would be in favour, if they thought they would have more chance of fluking 6th in the Aust Championship than they would have of being one of the best six players in the country. Sub-2000s have no vested interest either way.

I can see justification for including the winner as one place, since if the Australian Champion isn't even in the top six in the country there's no point in holding the Championship, but beyond that I'm with Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 09:10 PM
I think they do it because they believe reward for results provides the sort of motivation all the way down the sporting hierarchy that encourages elite atheletes to emerge.

They may very well believe that too.


True. However PR are little more than mathematical novelties. I'd be just as inclined to put faith in Buchholtz as PRs. So if the top 6 places hadn't had the top 6 PRs my answer would have been,"so what?"

It doesn't matter whether you use PRs or Buchholz or any indicator other than raw score, you can get the same result.




Is the objective to do as well as possible at the next olympiad or to do as well as possible at the olympiad in 10 years time? Perhaps by introducing a transparent selection process with obvious reward for performance will inspire the future champs to greater things.

Perhaps - but do we actually know anything about this?

Here's the current objectives:

1. Objectives

The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there are a number of other advantages as well.

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.

ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by FIDE.

b. Other Advantages

i. More experience for our strongest players, the possibility of them gaining international recognition in the form of titles or ELO ratings, and ultimately the raising of the general standard of Australian chess.

ii. The promotion of the image of Australian chess within FIDE and amongst the chess players of other countries.

iii. The arousal of the interest of the media and that of the general public as well.


Yes, they may be situations when we don't send the absolute strongest team on any particular year, but I don't believe this is the be all and end all.

True irrespective of system.


So I think removing selectors from the olympiad equation is something worth debating. I've certainly found the comments interesting. However, I don't think there has been a killer argument which renders the issue of selecting entirely on performance at one event a "no-brainer".

An issue I haven't raised so far is information loss. A selector is trying to synthesise an enormous volume of information - including the players' ratings, the players' results in tournaments and so on. Mathematically, you could, in theory, put all these factors together for players all around the world and come up with a formula that best predicted Olympiad results. It's extremely unlikely that "performance in national championship" would be anywhere near as good a predictor of performance in the Olympiad as whatever this formula was, simply because the formula is based on far more games, and on ratings taken from far more games, whereas the single-event method is based on a raw score from one 11-round Swiss tournament. Doing that you throw a huge pile of potentially relevant information away.

Selectors aren't going to be able to anticipate that formula, but they would have to be pretty bad at their job for their wrong assumptions about the importance of the various data items to make their choices worse than those through an impartial system based on 11 games.

If we were going to use an impartial system, I would prefer to use ratings than just use performance in one tournament (probably if using ratings, you would need to have caveats like "must have played 20 rated games in past two years").

Also, having a single event as the criteria for selection could devalue the others. Do you really want some IM just coming out of his shell every two years and making the Olympiad team by placing 6th in the Aussie Champs and nothing else?


I think the highest rated player to comment so far has been bobby1972 who seemed to like the idea.

Actually I am six points ahead of him at the moment, though I'm pretty sure he's a stronger player as his peak rating has been higher than mine and also as about 100 points of my rating are probably ballast due to local knowledge.


It would be good to get the opinion of people who would be realistically vynig for an olympic team place. Perhaps a survey of all active players rated over 2150 would be interesting.

As with the rating system, I don't see why their opinions require any special consideration here. A player in contention normally has a vested interest in a simple system rather than a complex one. That doesn't mean the simple system is necessarily the best.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:17 PM
are you and admin in this forum too like the Grand Poobah? I thought I saw your name lit up in the orange admin color when you logged in? :?:

It would appear so. :?

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:23 PM
I would think a fair few would be in favour, if they thought they would have more chance of fluking 6th in the Aust Championship than they would have of being one of the best six players in the country. Sub-2000s have no vested interest either way.

I think that would be a distinct factor too. Sub-2000 might have a vested interest in the short term performance at the next olympiad. Preference to see Aust as high up the ladder as possible leading to myopia. Not sure how much of an effect this might be but I'm sure an argument along these lines could be made.


I can see justification for including the winner as one place, since if the Australian Champion isn't even in the top six in the country there's no point in holding the Championship, but beyond that I'm with Kevin.

As I stated in an earlier post it took me a little time to appreciate all the aspects of a selector free mechanism. At first I was opposed to the idea but now I'm starting to see more and more merit in the idea. It's not a hobby-horse of mine but the discussion has been illuminating for me and I hope worthwhile for everyone.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 09:31 PM
I think ACF should learn from the past mistakes and make "no appeals" policy like most other sports such as rugby, league, cricket etc.

Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture
There is no such thing as MUST.
There are many other sports that have NO appeals mechanism.
There is a lot to be said for the theory that says:
If they want to appeal let them do so via the courts.
If nothing else this will cut down on all frivilous appeals.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 09:33 PM
. . . I'm not sure of the technicalities of this but I'd have to agree with the above writer that if it can be done (banning appeals) then it should.

RUBBISH :x :evil:

Any person who does not get selected, can take the ACF to teh court. There is NOTHING that stops them from doing so. Winning the appeal of course is another matter entirely.

Having an appeal process in the ACF, will actually reduce the chance of us ghaving to go to courts - somnething that is far more time consuming, stressful and financially expensive to us.

In addition, having an appeals process ensures that people who offer themself for selection are confident that the selection process will be fair, transparent and accountable, and give great confidence and integrity to the selection process :idea:

I am surprised that a rabid liberal like you, would agree to this step, which essentially reduces fairness and accountability in the process

Shame Mr Forum Admin Shame :(
What a load of rubbish.
Your opinion does not make it right.
Maybe it should be shame on CL instead of shame on the Forum Admin.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 09:36 PM
anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Agree with you 120% AR. In fact, ban them from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating so they come back as unrated after the ban. We should have done this to the last person that took ACF to court for wasting our membership fund to defend such stupid case in court. :twisted:

You are a complete and utter moron....I thought that matt was an idiot, but compared to you, he is an einstien. You surely must be the stupidest poster that has ever posted in this BB :x :evil: :x :evil:

How DARE you victimise and blackball someone who is simply exercising their DEMOCRATIC rights? You have no right to do that, or even suggest that

Any person has the right to appeal if they feel that they were hard done by. To then say that that person should be then hounded and driven out of chess is evil, and shows what morally bankrupt people you two are :x :evil: Why should a person be punished for exercising their DEMOCRATIC right to take the ACF to the court, because they feel hard done by? that is SCUMBAG behaviour

An appeal process that is within the auspices of the ACF, will reduce the need for a judicial appeal process, and enable any readily identifiable errors to be rectified quickly.

This is like when your boss is unfair, and you complain about the boss, and then the boss victimises you fo rmaking your DEMOCRATIC right to complain - this is pure EVIL in action, and is unjust, unfair, and uncorrect
peanbrain is allowed to express an opinion just like you.
It does not make him evil or undemocratic.
The only utter moron around here seems to be YOU. =;

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 09:41 PM
I think that would be a distinct factor too. Sub-2000 might have a vested interest in the short term performance at the next olympiad. Preference to see Aust as high up the ladder as possible leading to myopia. Not sure how much of an effect this might be but I'm sure an argument along these lines could be made.

I don't think that qualifies as a vested interest - especially not given that it is one of the major objectives, if someone believes in the other major objective is that a vested interest too?

Also, at present selectors operate under a selection criterion that is "to rank the players in order of playing strength". I mention that for whatever relevance it may have to whether selectors currently have any choice in whether to be "myopic" or not. Actually there is a very useful debate waiting to be had about whether such a selection criterion really matches the stated objectives in all cases or not.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:52 PM
They may very well believe that too.

Worth considering.


It doesn't matter whether you use PRs or Buchholz or any indicator other than raw score, you can get the same result.

I agree no system is perfect, but your argument was that one imperfect system is no good as it doesn't agree with another imperfect system. I think you agree that neither system is perfect. Perhaps you already knew that as was just trying to demonstrate that tie-break systems are imperfect.

I agree. But they are objective and transparent. Selectors are also imperfect, not entirely objective and not entirely transparent.


Perhaps - but do we actually know anything about this?

Here's the current objectives:

1. Objectives

The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there are a number of other advantages as well.

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.

ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by FIDE.

b. Other Advantages

i. More experience for our strongest players, the possibility of them gaining international recognition in the form of titles or ELO ratings, and ultimately the raising of the general standard of Australian chess.

ii. The promotion of the image of Australian chess within FIDE and amongst the chess players of other countries.

iii. The arousal of the interest of the media and that of the general public as well.

I think a selection by tournament or at least some places selected directly from a tournament would strengthen objective a.ii. Of course, opinions may vary, but the debate is worthwhile.

Of the minors b.1 would be assisted by more top players gettnigexposure to the olypmiad experience; I think b.ii is system neutral. b.iii could be assisted by the possibility of meteoric rises being morequickly recognised and also less chance (IMHO) of attracting the bad publicity of selection law suits.



Yes, they may be situations when we don't send the absolute strongest team on any particular year, but I don't believe this is the be all and end all.

True irrespective of system.

I agree.


An issue I haven't raised so far is information loss. A selector is trying to synthesise an enormous volume of information - including the players' ratings, the players' results in tournaments and so on. Mathematically, you could, in theory, put all these factors together for players all around the world and come up with a formula that best predicted Olympiad results. It's extremely unlikely that "performance in national championship" would be anywhere near as good a predictor of performance in the Olympiad as whatever this formula was, simply because the formula is based on far more games, and on ratings taken from far more games, whereas the single-event method is based on a raw score from one 11-round Swiss tournament. Doing that you throw a huge pile of potentially relevant information away.

Selectors aren't going to be able to anticipate that formula, but they would have to be pretty bad at their job for their wrong assumptions about the importance of the various data items to make their choices worse than those through an impartial system based on 11 games.

I don't think you've made a convincing argument here. I'm not claiming that using the Aust Champ as the sole selection criteria will produce the strongest team every year. But I'm not willing to concede it would be outperformed by the selectors every time either.

Having access to huge amounts of information doesn't necessarily produce a more informed decision.


If we were going to use an impartial system, I would prefer to use ratings than just use performance in one tournament (probably if using ratings, you would need to have caveats like "must have played 20 rated games in past two years").

Also, having a single event as the criteria for selection could devalue the others. Do you really want some IM just coming out of his shell every two years and making the Olympiad team by placing 6th in the Aussie Champs and nothing else?

Rating as the sole method would be a problem for players who play a lot overseas. Wohl could quite easily not be in the top 6 on the ACF list, come to the Aust Champs quite easily finish in the top 6 because he is as good as the top 6 but not rated a highly due to lack of domestic participation.



I think the highest rated player to comment so far has been bobby1972 who seemed to like the idea.

Actually I am six points ahead of him at the moment, though I'm pretty sure he's a stronger player as his peak rating has been higher than mine and also as about 100 points of my rating are probably ballast due to local knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification. ;)



It would be good to get the opinion of people who would be realistically vynig for an olympic team place. Perhaps a survey of all active players rated over 2150 would be interesting.

As with the rating system, I don't see why their opinions require any special consideration here. A player in contention normally has a vested interest in a simple system rather than a complex one. That doesn't mean the simple system is necessarily the best.

True, I was just expressing an interest in the views of those most directly impacted. Of course I was not suggesting that that would be the be-all-and-end-all.

However, I think the majority may well prefer it as it would give many a chance to "fluke" a place at the olympiad. My argument is this incentive might not be a bad thing for Australian chess long term.

Rincewind
19-01-2004, 09:57 PM
Also, at present selectors operate under a selection criterion that is "to rank the players in order of playing strength". I mention that for whatever relevance it may have to whether selectors currently have any choice in whether to be "myopic" or not. Actually there is a very useful debate waiting to be had about whether such a selection criterion really matches the stated objectives in all cases or not.

I think we are starting to close in on this issue to, but from a different direction. Whether we should be aiming at best performance at the next olympiad or general improvement in placing at olympiads over time.

When we have an answer to that then we can look at selection criteria.

However, I'm still enjoying the debate no whether there should be a selection committee at all. Still I feel that soon may change as most things that need to be said seem to have been.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 10:49 PM
Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture
There is no such thing as MUST.
There are many other sports that have NO appeals mechanism.
There is a lot to be said for the theory that says:
If they want to appeal let them do so via the courts.
If nothing else this will cut down on all frivilous appeals.

And in cutting down the frivilous appeals, you also cut down the appeals of people who have a legitimnate case.

And do not start the thing about they can take it to the courts, for not everyone has the money to take appeals to courts. That is not in the interest of the ACF as well that everytime there is an appeal we have to go to court

So far a lot of appeals have been heard within the ACF, but to my knowledge only one by Chris Depasquale that has gone to the court. By having an ACF appeal mechansim you reduce the need to go to courts, and also at the same time ensure that any obvious problems in selection process are picked up ourselves rather than go to the cpourts - where we will have to bear the costs and any damages if we lose

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:01 PM
anyone who resorts to courts can have his/her reputation completely demolished by good PR by the ACF. We'll simply have to make any appelant look like some greedy, selfish, egotistical scum. Trust me. They ain't gonna stick around forever.

AR

Agree with you 120% AR. In fact, ban them from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating so they come back as unrated after the ban. We should have done this to the last person that took ACF to court for wasting our membership fund to defend such stupid case in court. :twisted:

You are a complete and utter moron....I thought that matt was an idiot, but compared to you, he is an einstien. You surely must be the stupidest poster that has ever posted in this BB :x :evil: :x :evil:

How DARE you victimise and blackball someone who is simply exercising their DEMOCRATIC rights? You have no right to do that, or even suggest that

Any person has the right to appeal if they feel that they were hard done by. To then say that that person should be then hounded and driven out of chess is evil, and shows what morally bankrupt people you two are :x :evil: Why should a person be punished for exercising their DEMOCRATIC right to take the ACF to the court, because they feel hard done by? that is SCUMBAG behaviour

An appeal process that is within the auspices of the ACF, will reduce the need for a judicial appeal process, and enable any readily identifiable errors to be rectified quickly.

This is like when your boss is unfair, and you complain about the boss, and then the boss victimises you fo rmaking your DEMOCRATIC right to complain - this is pure EVIL in action, and is unjust, unfair, and uncorrect
peanbrain is allowed to express an opinion just like you.
It does not make him evil or undemocratic.
The only utter moron around here seems to be YOU. =;

So you think there is nothing evil and undemocratic about having anyone who appeals in the court having " his/her reputation completely demolished", and make themlook like "greedy, selfish, egotistical scum"? :x :x

You think that there is nothing wrong with banning people who appeal from all ACF events for the year and remove their ACF rating.

All this for exercising their LEGITIMATE DEMOCRATIC right for justice? :x :evil: :x :evil:

As Supreme Leader, maybe Power has gone to your head, and you think that the establishment can do whatever it wants? - and that all demoratic recourse to ensure a fair, just, transparent process is to be crushed? Saddam, Stalin and Hitler would be proud of this crushing of democracy and justice, and maybe North Korea can send someone to observe how this is done..

First the appeals in the NECG...then the appeals in the Olympiad...then the mooted porposals to torment and drive people who appeal from chess.....the ACF commision proposal to reduce democracy.....the future is easy to see....

Heil ACF....Heil....The facists are rising up and removing avenues for accountability and fairness..Heil ACF...Heil :x :evil:

Thanks to you and others, if this UNDEMORCATIC no appeal policy comes about, only the rich will be able to appeal. The poor will have no justice...I hope you can sleep at night, and look yourself in the mirror.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 11:04 PM
Just a minute sunshine :x

let us not go over the appeal/ no appeal debate that was thgere in the NECG squad.

An appeals avenue MUST exist within the auspices of the ACF to ensure that obvious problems are sorted out as soon as possible. It is fundamental to a transparent, fair, accountable, honest, integrity culture
There is no such thing as MUST.
There are many other sports that have NO appeals mechanism.
There is a lot to be said for the theory that says:
If they want to appeal let them do so via the courts.
If nothing else this will cut down on all frivilous appeals.

And in cutting down the frivilous appeals, you also cut down the appeals of people who have a legitimnate case.

And do not start the thing about they can take it to the courts, for not everyone has the money to take appeals to courts. That is not in the interest of the ACF as well that everytime there is an appeal we have to go to court
Do NOT tell me what I can and cannot start. :x
If their appeal isnt frivilous they will take it to court. Of it is they wont.


So far a lot of appeals have been heard within the ACF, but to my knowledge only one by Chris Depasquale that has gone to the court. By having an ACF appeal mechansim you reduce the need to go to courts, and also at the same time ensure that any obvious problems in selection process are picked up ourselves rather than go to the cpourts - where we will have to bear the costs and any damages if we lose
No the simple solution is to have no appeals.
Prior to the Depasquale case the ACF by-laws did not allow for appeals.
I am unaware of any court case prior to that.
It is only after the Despas case and the ACF added the appeals process to the by-laws that we have had appeals.
So no appeal mechanism, no appeals.
And given the precedent of the Depas case no-one is going to take the ACF to court unless they are fairly certain of winning. Thus peoples time isnt wasted on useless appeals.
Therefore it is clear that we were better off without appeals.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:13 PM
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

WBA
19-01-2004, 11:18 PM
I think an appeals avenue should always be open. Regardless of whether there is or is not there is always the court. Having the avenue of appeal furthers strengthens any claims ACF makes in regards to a level field for all, and strengthens any case when they get to court. If the ACF get it wrong, and the claimant wins in court, this could be quite costly.

Banning members or stripping their rating may however find the ACF not only on the receiving end of an irate chess community, it is also completely illogical, and almost definetly illegal (IMO). You see restricting someones trade is a very big deal. Take depas for example if he was banned for 1 year, and then came back unrated, he could (and I think successfully) argue that his trade is restricted, all because he appealed against a decision where he felt he was hard done by. Neither the ACF nor any state organisation, should be about dragging players or clubs through the mud

Case in point, the AFL CANNOT ban Carlton for taking it to court, simple as that.

Trying to shut people up who are showing courage in their convictions is wrong, an appeals process allows for the one day when an obviously wrong choice is made due to bias. Keep the process democratic I think.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 11:23 PM
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
This has been trotted out before. :rolleyes:

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:27 PM
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
This has been trotted out before. :rolleyes:

And even after that, you still do not get it do you? ](*,)

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 11:32 PM
I think an appeals avenue should always be open. Regardless of whether there is or is not there is always the court. Having the avenue of appeal furthers strengthens any claims ACF makes in regards to a level field for all, and strengthens any case when they get to court. If the ACF get it wrong, and the claimant wins in court, this could be quite costly.
Our legal advice from after the Depas case was that their is no need for the ACF to have an appeals process.
However if their is to be an Appeals process and I'm not convinced there should be then lets at least have a reasonable lodgement fee of say $1000 instead of the current insignificant fee of $50. No one is going to be worried about losing a lousy $50 for lodging a frivilous appeal.


Banning members or stripping their rating may however find the ACF not only on the receiving end of an irate chess community, it is also completely illogical, and almost definetly illegal (IMO).
I cannot see anyone seriously considering banning a player because they appealed or took the ACF to court.


Case in point, the AFL CANNOT ban Carlton for taking it to court, simple as that.
Not sure this is relevant.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:35 PM
No the simple solution is to have no appeals.
Prior to the Depasquale case the ACF by-laws did not allow for appeals.
I am unaware of any court case prior to that.
It is only after the Despas case and the ACF added the appeals process to the by-laws that we have had appeals.
So no appeal mechanism, no appeals.
And given the precedent of the Depas case no-one is going to take the ACF to court unless they are fairly certain of winning. Thus peoples time isnt wasted on useless appeals.
Therefore it is clear that we were better off without appeals.

1. Did you think WHY we decided on the appeal by-laws after the Depasquale case? Could it be that the ACF thought that it was better to treat appeals within ACF, so that obvious errors could be rectified before going to the expensive court process, and also ensure the fairness, integrity, accountability and transparency of the entire selection process?

2. Can you GUARANTEE me that there will be no errors at all in the slection of the Olympiad players? Given the world juniors selection, I would not bet on it..

Under your plan, the only recourse would be to take the ACF to courts to seek redress. HOW can a poor person do that? Justice is NOT only for the wealthy, and EVERYONE has a legitimate and fundamental right to demand and expect justice and fairness..

If you had your way, only the rich can appeal by affording to go to the courts. The measure of a human is NOT how much he/she earns, but what is INSIDE them

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:41 PM
I think an appeals avenue should always be open. Regardless of whether there is or is not there is always the court. Having the avenue of appeal furthers strengthens any claims ACF makes in regards to a level field for all, and strengthens any case when they get to court. If the ACF get it wrong, and the claimant wins in court, this could be quite costly.

Banning members or stripping their rating may however find the ACF not only on the receiving end of an irate chess community, it is also completely illogical, and almost definetly illegal (IMO).

Case in point, the AFL CANNOT ban Carlton for taking it to court, simple as that.

Trying to shut people up who are showing courage in their convictions is wrong, an appeals process allows for the one day when an obviously wrong choice is made due to bias. Keep the process democratic I think.

Well made and articulated post. It is a pleasure to read a post that is sensible, rational, logical and makes it's point very effectively.

Good on you

I agree with your sentiments exactly. An appeal process within the ACF, before the courts appeal process (which by the way ANYONE can undertake), ensures equity and fairness, and also like you pointed out enables a stronger case to be defended if the appealant decides to appeal further via the courts. All of the obvious errors can be sorted out in the ACF appeal process as well.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:44 PM
However if their is to be an Appeals process and I'm not convinced there should be then lets at least have a reasonable lodgement fee of say $1000 instead of the current insignificant fee of $50. No one is going to be worried about losing a lousy $50 for lodging a frivilous appeal.


I am a middle class person, and can afford $1000 for an appeal.

However many chess players cannot find the $1000 lodgement fees, as not all of them can afford it.

Money should not buy you the right to have an appeal hearing, and a $1000 appeal fee is way too high

WBA
19-01-2004, 11:44 PM
Our legal advice from after the Depas case was that their is no need for the ACF to have an appeals process.
However if their is to be an Appeals process and I'm not convinced there should be then lets at least have a reasonable lodgement fee of say $1000 instead of the current insignificant fee of $50. No one is going to be worried about losing a lousy $50 for lodging a frivilous appeal.

Bill I tend to generally agree with you here, though maybe I differ on the cost. I agree $50 is to low, but I think $500 is more appropriate. I understand ACF has no legal obligation to have an appeals process, I think however there is a moral one. It also strengthens there case, if taken to court.


I cannot see anyone seriously considering banning a player because they appealed or took the ACF to court.

I know this, this is in response to an earlier post by arosar and peanbrain. There is absolutely no need to try and demolish the individual who honestly feels they have a case. If the ACF case is strong enough they will win. I was suggesting banning etc wpuld be draconian. I honestly do not believe the ACF would stoop to these levels.


Not sure this is relevant.

In the context it is, this is in relation to AR and PB again. I am stating that their suggested smear campaign, and/or banning someone for appealling to the courts would be akin to kicking out a footy club who done the same thing. Simply it cannot be done.

chesslover
19-01-2004, 11:48 PM
I know this, this is in response to an earlier post by arosar and peanbrain. There is absolutely no need to try and demolish the individual who honestly feels they have a case. If the ACF case is strong enough they will win. I was suggesting banning etc was draconian. I honestly do not believe the ACF would stoop to these levels.

In the context it is, this is in relation to AR and PB again. I am stating that their suggested smear campaign, and/or banning someone for appealling to the courts would be akin to kicking out a footy club who done the same thing. Simply it cannot be done.

and not only that, the person smeared can sue the ACF successfully for victimising them, and punishing them for seeking redress via the courts.

There would then no need for any Olympiad discussions, as the ACF will be bankrupt by the damages payout to function

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 12:00 AM
Our legal advice from after the Depas case was that their is no need for the ACF to have an appeals process.
However if their is to be an Appeals process and I'm not convinced there should be then lets at least have a reasonable lodgement fee of say $1000 instead of the current insignificant fee of $50. No one is going to be worried about losing a lousy $50 for lodging a frivilous appeal.

Bill I tend to generally agree with you here, though maybe I differ on the cost. I agree $50 is to low, but I think $500 is more appropriate. I understand ACF has no legal obligation to have an appeals process, I think however there is a moral one. It also strengthens there case, if taken to court.
Does it?
Not having an appeals process at the time of the Depasquale case didnt seem to be of any relevance whatsoever.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 12:02 AM
However if their is to be an Appeals process and I'm not convinced there should be then lets at least have a reasonable lodgement fee of say $1000 instead of the current insignificant fee of $50. No one is going to be worried about losing a lousy $50 for lodging a frivilous appeal.


I am a middle class person, and can afford $1000 for an appeal.

However many chess players cannot find the $1000 lodgement fees, as not all of them can afford it.

Money should not buy you the right to have an appeal hearing, and a $1000 appeal fee is way too high
It isn't way too high.
After all if you win your appeal you get the $1000 back.
It just stops useless appeals.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 12:04 AM
I know this, this is in response to an earlier post by arosar and peanbrain. There is absolutely no need to try and demolish the individual who honestly feels they have a case. If the ACF case is strong enough they will win. I was suggesting banning etc was draconian. I honestly do not believe the ACF would stoop to these levels.

In the context it is, this is in relation to AR and PB again. I am stating that their suggested smear campaign, and/or banning someone for appealling to the courts would be akin to kicking out a footy club who done the same thing. Simply it cannot be done.

and not only that, the person smeared can sue the ACF successfully for victimising them, and punishing them for seeking redress via the courts.

There would then no need for any Olympiad discussions, as the ACF will be bankrupt by the damages payout to function
Your like a friggin dog with a bone.

We already agreed this was a stupid idea.

Give it a rest and move on.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 12:06 AM
I agree no system is perfect, but your argument was that one imperfect system is no good as it doesn't agree with another imperfect system. I think you agree that neither system is perfect. Perhaps you already knew that as was just trying to demonstrate that tie-break systems are imperfect.

I'd go a bit further than that and say that I suspect raw score of being more imperfect than some of the others. For ratings prizes if I knew the ratings in the tournaments were reasonably accurate and there were no practical obstacles I would consider Glicko performance rating a much better indicator than raw score. For outright prizes it's hard to say - how do you judge which system is "better" without using the other to evaluate it? It would be interesting to look at some data and see which of (raw position, performance rating) better predicted raw score in a similarly major event six months down the track.

Swiss draws can throw up vagaries affecting even first place, although this is less likely in an 11-rounder unless someone forfeits at the business end of procedings. In the Tas Champs 1998 ( a seven rounder) I was diddled out of an extremely likely =1st by the top seed forfeiting in round 1 and hence being further down the draw than he should have been based on his playing strength on the weekend in question - meaning that the eventual winner never got to play him at all, while those finishing 2nd and 3rd did.


Perhaps - but do we actually know anything about this?

Here's the current objectives:

1. Objectives

The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there are a number of other advantages as well.

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.

ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by FIDE.

b. Other Advantages

i. More experience for our strongest players, the possibility of them gaining international recognition in the form of titles or ELO ratings, and ultimately the raising of the general standard of Australian chess.

ii. The promotion of the image of Australian chess within FIDE and amongst the chess players of other countries.

iii. The arousal of the interest of the media and that of the general public as well.


I think a selection by tournament or at least some places selected directly from a tournament would strengthen objective a.ii. Of course, opinions may vary, but the debate is worthwhile.

On my reading a.ii is clearly system-neutral, selection in the Olympiad is the goal that acts as the incentive.


Of the minors b.1 would be assisted by more top players gettnigexposure to the olypmiad experience;

Do you mean by more variety in which top players gained exposure? I don't see where "more experience for our strongest players" necessarily means "more experience for more of our strongest players".


b.iii could be assisted by the possibility of meteoric rises being morequickly recognised and also less chance (IMHO) of attracting the bad publicity of selection law suits.

It is not at all clear to me that meteoric rises will be more quickly recognised by selection by a single tournament that is usually held several months before the olympiad. Selectors are generally very good at picking metioric rises, perhaps being more prone to overdo it than underdo it, if anything.


But I'm not willing to concede it would be outperformed by the selectors every time either.

Having access to huge amounts of information doesn't necessarily produce a more informed decision.

No, but using it even reasonably carefully (ie not getting too carried away with any single aspect) should. I'm not saying the selectors would outperform the results of one tournament every time, but I would expect them to on average, because the potential usefulness of all that information is so great that the selectors can afford to be quite inaccurate before dropping below the level of an 11-round event.


Rating as the sole method would be a problem for players who play a lot overseas. Wohl could quite easily not be in the top 6 on the ACF list, come to the Aust Champs quite easily finish in the top 6 because he is as good as the top 6 but not rated a highly due to lack of domestic participation.

That is why I suggested a lower bound for activity under such a hypothetical system. Alternatively, to cater for mainly overseas players, FIDE rating plus a translation modifier added in consultation with the ACF Ratings Officer could be used instead.

This is something else we could look at data on sometime. Which is a better predictor of raw score in a major event six months after another one - rating at the time of the second, or performance in the first? I'd be almost certain it's the first, at least now that we have Glicko.

chesslover
20-01-2004, 12:06 AM
I am a middle class person, and can afford $1000 for an appeal.

However many chess players cannot find the $1000 lodgement fees, as not all of them can afford it.

Money should not buy you the right to have an appeal hearing, and a $1000 appeal fee is way too high
It isn't way too high.
After all if you win your appeal you get the $1000 back.
It just stops useless appeals.

Okay if a NSWCA member does not have the money to front an appeal, but believes that they are legitimate grounds how do you propose tthey fund the appeal?

Do you want them to go to darling harbour, and beg for the money to fund their appeal?

Not everyone is as well off as you, and $1000 is a BIG deal to many families, that have kids, schooling and paying off mortgages

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 12:09 AM
I am a middle class person, and can afford $1000 for an appeal.

However many chess players cannot find the $1000 lodgement fees, as not all of them can afford it.

Money should not buy you the right to have an appeal hearing, and a $1000 appeal fee is way too high
It isn't way too high.
After all if you win your appeal you get the $1000 back.
It just stops useless appeals.

Okay if a NSWCA member does not have the money to front an appeal, but believes that they are legitimate grounds how do you propose tthey fund the appeal?

Do you want them to go to darling harbour, and beg for the money to fund their appeal?

Not everyone is as well off as you, and $1000 is a BIG deal to many families, that have kids, schooling and paying off mortgages

There are many situations in Australia where before you can complain/appeal you have to put up a fee.
Why should chess appeals be different.

chesslover
20-01-2004, 12:16 AM
It isn't way too high.
After all if you win your appeal you get the $1000 back.
It just stops useless appeals.

Okay if a NSWCA member does not have the money to front an appeal, but believes that they are legitimate grounds how do you propose tthey fund the appeal?

Do you want them to go to darling harbour, and beg for the money to fund their appeal?

Not everyone is as well off as you, and $1000 is a BIG deal to many families, that have kids, schooling and paying off mortgages

There are many situations in Australia where before you can complain/appeal you have to put up a fee.
Why should chess appeals be different.

going from a $50 appeal fee to a $1000 appeal fee is a 2000% increase in fee. :shock:

Does that sound reasonable? Are you keeping place with inflation in some south american country?

No one is disagreeing with the need to have a processing fee for appeals. The disagreement is with if there is an ACF appeal fee, wether it should be set so high that it prohibits the poorer collegues from pursuing otherwise legitimate appeals.

At least 2 posters have said $1000 is way too high. When you consider that the medain Australian earns about $40K pa, $1000 is way too high.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 12:22 AM
It isn't way too high.
After all if you win your appeal you get the $1000 back.
It just stops useless appeals.

Okay if a NSWCA member does not have the money to front an appeal, but believes that they are legitimate grounds how do you propose tthey fund the appeal?

Do you want them to go to darling harbour, and beg for the money to fund their appeal?

Not everyone is as well off as you, and $1000 is a BIG deal to many families, that have kids, schooling and paying off mortgages

There are many situations in Australia where before you can complain/appeal you have to put up a fee.
Why should chess appeals be different.

going from a $50 appeal fee to a $1000 appeal fee is a 2000% increase in fee. :shock:
Irrelevant since the current fee is stupid and totally inadequate.

If a person gets selected to represent Australia overseas they are going to need a lot more than a $1000.
If they can find that they can find the $1000 to appeal. :D

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 12:30 AM
Saddam, Stalin and Hitler would be proud of this crushing of democracy and justice, and maybe North Korea can send someone to observe how this is done..

This is hysterical nonsense. I'm not sure I can be bothered debating all this if you're going to call someone fascist just because of their views on whether the Australian Chess Federation should or should not allow appeals. Haven't I posted stuff about Godwin's Law here often enough before? Don't you realise that the overuse of labels like "fascism" and "terrorism" is causing the real things to be taken less seriously?


Thanks to you and others, if this UNDEMORCATIC no appeal policy comes about, only the rich will be able to appeal. The poor will have no justice...I hope you can sleep at night, and look yourself in the mirror.

Whatever else you might think about it it is not "undemocratic". It is an issue of whether a certain liberal right should or should not exist. There are arguments for or against. At the moment I personally favour retaining appeals (except in the NECG case) - not out of necessity but because it is better to solve things within our own community rather than going running to lawyers. However this support is not set in iron and if there were too many disasters like with the world juniors I think there would be a strong case for abolishing appeals. Regardless of all that, your way of responding to those who support the abolition of appeals is totally uncalled for.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 12:40 AM
If a person gets selected to represent Australia overseas they are going to need a lot more than a $1000.
If they can find that they can find the $1000 to appeal. :D

I'd certainly support an increase to $200 no worries. Anyone with a very legitimate case should be able to scrape that up with a whip round at their local club. If the selections aren't obviously unjust or procedurally dodgy they shouldn't be appealling anyway, because they'll lose.

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 12:47 AM
I think a selection by tournament or at least some places selected directly from a tournament would strengthen objective a.ii. Of course, opinions may vary, but the debate is worthwhile.

On my reading a.ii is clearly system-neutral, selection in the Olympiad is the goal that acts as the incentive.

I think for reasons previously posted that selection based on qualification tournament would provide greater incentive. For example, accusations of selector bias could provide a disincentive which does not have a corresponding negative of similar weight with tournament based entry.



Of the minors b.1 would be assisted by more top players gettnigexposure to the olypmiad experience;

Do you mean by more variety in which top players gained exposure? I don't see where "more experience for our strongest players" necessarily means "more experience for more of our strongest players".

I think the benefit of experience is greatest the first time and diminishes exponentially thereafter. Therefore from an experience point of view the greater variety of deserving players who get to go the better. Of course this could be fixed in the current system by modifying selection criteria, but it is not currently so.



b.iii could be assisted by the possibility of meteoric rises being morequickly recognised and also less chance (IMHO) of attracting the bad publicity of selection law suits.

It is not at all clear to me that meteoric rises will be more quickly recognised by selection by a single tournament that is usually held several months before the olympiad. Selectors are generally very good at picking metioric rises, perhaps being more prone to overdo it than underdo it, if anything.

Perhaps but you do have greater drama when someone outperforms expectation to clinch an olympic place. Potential for a more newsworthy story.



But I'm not willing to concede it would be outperformed by the selectors every time either.

Having access to huge amounts of information doesn't necessarily produce a more informed decision.

No, but using it even reasonably carefully (ie not getting too carried away with any single aspect) should. I'm not saying the selectors would outperform the results of one tournament every time, but I would expect them to on average, because the potential usefulness of all that information is so great that the selectors can afford to be quite inaccurate before dropping below the level of an 11-round event.

It's still not clear to me that that is necessarily so. Perhaps it is like predicting the weather, in that the system is so random and/or complex that the additional information is of limited if any use.



Rating as the sole method would be a problem for players who play a lot overseas. Wohl could quite easily not be in the top 6 on the ACF list, come to the Aust Champs quite easily finish in the top 6 because he is as good as the top 6 but not rated a highly due to lack of domestic participation.

That is why I suggested a lower bound for activity under such a hypothetical system. Alternatively, to cater for mainly overseas players, FIDE rating plus a translation modifier added in consultation with the ACF Ratings Officer could be used instead.

I'd like to see less fiddling not more. ;) he idea is simple. You get together, you play chess, the top 6 places win representative berths.


This is something else we could look at data on sometime. Which is a better predictor of raw score in a major event six months after another one - rating at the time of the second, or performance in the first? I'd be almost certain it's the first, at least now that we have Glicko.

I don't know if you would get a significant difference. Furthermore, situations would not be similar as results of late rounds might change if the top 6 places were going to secure olympiad team berths.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 01:18 AM
I think for reasons previously posted that selection based on qualification tournament would provide greater incentive. For example, accusations of selector bias could provide a disincentive which does not have a corresponding negative of similar weight with tournament based entry.

A corresponding negative would be some players finding it difficult to compete in the Aus Champs for whatever reason who would have been able to compete in enough events to show the selectors some form otherwise. And does perceived selector bias actually motivate people who are serious candidates to not want to apply for selection at all?



Of the minors b.1 would be assisted by more top players gettnigexposure to the olypmiad experience;

Do you mean by more variety in which top players gained exposure? I don't see where "more experience for our strongest players" necessarily means "more experience for more of our strongest players".


I think the benefit of experience is greatest the first time and diminishes exponentially thereafter. Therefore from an experience point of view the greater variety of deserving players who get to go the better.

I agree it diminishes, not sure about exponentially. However this still depends on who you mean by "top players". If "top players" means the half-dozen at the very top then the goal is served by picking them again and again while they are at the top (however you determine this). If "top players" means say the top 40 then it is more like what you say.


Perhaps but you do have greater drama when someone outperforms expectation to clinch an olympic place. Potential for a more newsworthy story.

This is true but what about the newsworthiness of strong as opposed to weak Olympiad performances?


It's still not clear to me that that is necessarily so. Perhaps it is like predicting the weather, in that the system is so random and/or complex that the additional information is of limited if any use.

Can't see why. Weather has sensitive dependence on initial conditions that makes forecasting difficult, can't think of how that would be relevant to chess. If it's relevant to anything it's the vagaries that can happen in Swiss draws sometimes, like the classic case in the last Tas weekender when I got a 900-point mismatch on board two in the final round.


I'd like to see less fiddling not more. ;) he idea is simple. You get together, you play chess, the top 6 places win representative berths.

You do know the line, don't you, about solutions that are simple, elegant and wrong? :shock:


I don't know if you would get a significant difference. Furthermore, situations would not be similar as results of late rounds might change if the top 6 places were going to secure olympiad team berths.

Yes, a valid methodical concern, but more of a problem for your case than mine. A and B are from the same state and good mates, it's the final round, they're playing and <insert result here> puts A into the Olympiad while B can't possibly make it. Arranged result, coming up. Bad publicity, coming up.

That aside, I'd expect you would get a significant difference given enough data.

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 07:34 AM
I think for reasons previously posted that selection based on qualification tournament would provide greater incentive. For example, accusations of selector bias could provide a disincentive which does not have a corresponding negative of similar weight with tournament based entry.

A corresponding negative would be some players finding it difficult to compete in the Aus Champs for whatever reason who would have been able to compete in enough events to show the selectors some form otherwise. And does perceived selector bias actually motivate people who are serious candidates to not want to apply for selection at all?

I would opine that is not of similar weight.



I think the benefit of experience is greatest the first time and diminishes exponentially thereafter. Therefore from an experience point of view the greater variety of deserving players who get to go the better.

I agree it diminishes, not sure about exponentially. However this still depends on who you mean by "top players". If "top players" means the half-dozen at the very top then the goal is served by picking them again and again while they are at the top (however you determine this). If "top players" means say the top 40 then it is more like what you say.

How many players have finished in the top 6 of the Aust Champ in the last 10 years? Certainly less than 30, probably in the range of 15-20 without checking.



Perhaps but you do have greater drama when someone outperforms expectation to clinch an olympic place. Potential for a more newsworthy story.

This is true but what about the newsworthiness of strong as opposed to weak Olympiad performances?

This comment was meant in jest, right? I can see the headline, Aust Finishes a credible 29th at the Chess Olympiad. Stop the press! Hold the front page! I suggest that a human interest piece might have more chance of making it to print.



It's still not clear to me that that is necessarily so. Perhaps it is like predicting the weather, in that the system is so random and/or complex that the additional information is of limited if any use.

Can't see why. Weather has sensitive dependence on initial conditions that makes forecasting difficult, can't think of how that would be relevant to chess. If it's relevant to anything it's the vagaries that can happen in Swiss draws sometimes, like the classic case in the last Tas weekender when I got a 900-point mismatch on board two in the final round.


Not many analogies bear close scrutiny, however can you really compare the swiss draw at a Tasmanian weekender with that of the Australian Championship? A 900 point mismatch is unlikely in any round of the Ch.



I'd like to see less fiddling not more. ;) he idea is simple. You get together, you play chess, the top 6 places win representative berths.

You do know the line, don't you, about solutions that are simple, elegant and wrong? :shock:

I don't think either system is completely right or completely wrong. It is more complex than that. Certainly just saying it is wrong, doesn't make it so. I would say there are positives and negatives for both sides, and it is a matter of weighing them up objectively.



I don't know if you would get a significant difference. Furthermore, situations would not be similar as results of late rounds might change if the top 6 places were going to secure olympiad team berths.

Yes, a valid methodical concern, but more of a problem for your case than mine. A and B are from the same state and good mates, it's the final round, they're playing and <insert result here> puts A into the Olympiad while B can't possibly make it. Arranged result, coming up. Bad publicity, coming up.

No different to the possibility of a selector favouring a player from their state, is it?


That aside, I'd expect you would get a significant difference given enough data.

To do a fair study you would need to take into account the other potential advantages I outlined. The incentive that certain olympiad selection would give players to perform well at the Aust Champs in particular.

Then perhaps yes you would get a significant difference, however perhaps not ni the direction you expect. ;)

Ian Rout
20-01-2004, 08:02 AM
A few odds and ends -

* One thing I've missed in this discussion, though it may have been mentioned, is whether Barry is proposing using the order of finishing or just the fact of being in the top six. I presume the former, since if his system can distinguish between number 6 and 7 then surely it can distinguish between 1 and 6.

* Incidentally in all the discussion of how meaningful the finishing order and tie-breaks are down to number 6 we should remember that you would often only have to finish 8th or 9th, since there would be cases of players who don't want to go or are ineligible.

* I'm not rabidly for or against an appeals process though I think if there is such a thing it neeeds to be tightened up to only allow appeals against blatant injustices or breaches of the rules or criteria - there should be no such thing as an unsuccessful appeal. In all the recent cases I'm sure the complainants genuinely thought they were better than the player selected and they were probably right about half the time, but the disruption they caused far outweighed the benefit of having a mechanism that theoretically would have righted any wrongdoing if any had happened.

It should be noted though that there is no such thing as a sytem with no right of appeal - even if you have no right to appeal against the decision you have eighteen months in advance to lobby against the selection criteria, the process, the basis of appointing selectors etc. This is where CL's analogy with the Third Reich falls down (along with the fact that appealing against chess selectors and being fried in a gas chamber are not really comparable issues).

* Barry might have a more convincing case that there should be a qualifying tournament for the women. If we look at the list


These the top 10 females in australia

1. 2180!! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2. 2134!! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
3. 2110! 6 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
4. 2056! 0 NSW Sarai, Slavica [WFM]
5. 2028! 0 SA Nguyen, Giang
6. 1981! 6 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
7. 1880!! 4 NSW Lip, Catherine [WFM]
8. 1862! 0 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
9. 1856! 0 WA Mills, Natalie
10. 1853! 9 NSW Klimenko, Veronica [WFM]

Number 11 is nancy lane with a rating fo 1793



we see that only three of these players even have a !! - it must make it difficult for the selectors trying to choose between players who so rarely play.

peanbrain
20-01-2004, 08:20 AM
[quote] Thanks to you and others, if this UNDEMORCATIC no appeal policy comes about, only the rich will be able to appeal. The poor will have no justice...I hope you can sleep at night, and look yourself in the mirror.

Whatever else you might think about it it is not "undemocratic". It is an issue of whether a certain liberal right should or should not exist. There are arguments for or against. At the moment I personally favour retaining appeals (except in the NECG case) - not out of necessity but because it is better to solve things within our own community rather than going running to lawyers. However this support is not set in iron and if there were too many disasters like with the world juniors I think there would be a strong case for abolishing appeals. Regardless of all that, your way of responding to those who support the abolition of appeals is totally uncalled for.

This chesslover should change his name to bushlover or something like that. Obviously watched too much american movies and tv to be so one-eyed in his view of the world, and spewing out big words that he has no understanding of.

Listen up CL - it is not UNDEMOCRATIC if the majority of the chess community through their local chess bodies made representation at ACF meetings to scrap the appeals process. Democracy is about the right to voice your opinions and views, not always getting what YOU want or what YOU think is right. I don't see anyone on this BB telling you to shut up just because we disagree with what you've said. In fact you are the one keep telling others you disagree with to shut up - kind of ironic this all from a guy that goes on and on in the BB for DEMOCRACY isn't it?! [-X

From the NECG discussion, I think it is fair to say majority of the posters believes there should be no appeals - and CL is the one attacking all those people UNDEMOCRATIC. He went further by publishing the contact details of the sponsors, I call that an act of sabotage! :evil:

I think most reasonable people would agree it is not undemocratic if an issue was extensively debated and voted on. The outcome no matter you like it or not is a democratic one because that is what the majority want. There are codes and rules for all sports. If our chess governing body decided no appeals allowed then that is that. We can never stop any one taking the ACF to court, but at least we know the cost factor alone would ensure the person considering such action to have strong conviction/case on the matter.

Recall the final decision of ACF on the junior selection saga was something to do with the potential that the handling of the appeals process may be flawed, and ACF risk losing the case if it was taken to court. The simple fact is if there were no appeals policy at the time then it would be upto the person to challenge and prove his/her case in court that they should be selected, whereas any slight questionable handling of the appeals process would be sufficient cause for the courts to find in favor of the plaintiff.

arosar
20-01-2004, 08:51 AM
In the context it is, this is in relation to AR and PB again. I am stating that their suggested smear campaign, and/or banning someone for appealling to the courts would be akin to kicking out a footy club who done the same thing. Simply it cannot be done.

I did not actually suggest banning the player or removing their rating. It was me mate peanbrain who suggested that. But I do take ownership of the smear campaign idea. You can do this, I'm sure, in a perfectly legit way - that is, without being accused of 'defamation' or whatever. I just think of it as another method of winning an argument. That's all. And please don't listen to my other highly emotional, high-strung mate, CL. He's an admirable chap who's always speaking up for the common battler.

AR

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 09:28 AM
* One thing I've missed in this discussion, though it may have been mentioned, is whether Barry is proposing using the order of finishing or just the fact of being in the top six. I presume the former, since if his system can distinguish between number 6 and 7 then surely it can distinguish between 1 and 6.

Yes, the former. The latter cannot work unless you also have a selection panel to fill the remaining places. Although I admit that switching from the current system to a completely tournament based system in one step is probably unlikely to happen. Perhaps a compromise position is possible as a trial/first step.


* Incidentally in all the discussion of how meaningful the finishing order and tie-breaks are down to number 6 we should remember that you would often only have to finish 8th or 9th, since there would be cases of players who don't want to go or are ineligible.

True. This would depend on whether you use the Aust Champ or run a specific qualification event. The former would have a higher rate of non-takers of course, the latter should be practically zero.


* Barry might have a more convincing case that there should be a qualifying tournament for the women. If we look at the list


These the top 10 females in australia

1. 2180!! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2. 2134!! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
3. 2110! 6 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
4. 2056! 0 NSW Sarai, Slavica [WFM]
5. 2028! 0 SA Nguyen, Giang
6. 1981! 6 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
7. 1880!! 4 NSW Lip, Catherine [WFM]
8. 1862! 0 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
9. 1856! 0 WA Mills, Natalie
10. 1853! 9 NSW Klimenko, Veronica [WFM]

Number 11 is nancy lane with a rating fo 1793



we see that only three of these players even have a !! - it must make it difficult for the selectors trying to choose between players who so rarely play.

A very good point. I don't know much about women's chess and so was concentrating on the open selections but perhaps you are right. A postive point for the women's selection is that it probably adds (rather than loses) information to the selection process.

However, the women's champ might need to become a separate event again as being down the mix in a swiss might not be a sufficiently precise was of determining the top 4. Also current rating differences having the top 10 women in the same pool might overly weaken the Aust Ch. Of course, this should not preclude suitably qualified women from also taking part in the Australian Championship.

Garvinator
20-01-2004, 09:58 AM
However, the women's champ might need to become a separate event again as being down the mix in a swiss might not be a sufficiently precise was of determining the top 4. Also current rating differences having the top 10 women in the same pool might overly weaken the Aust Ch. Of course, this should not preclude suitably qualified women from also taking part in the Australian Championship.

Doesnt the australian womens champion come from the australian open tournament, not the australian championship? :?

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 10:17 AM
However, the women's champ might need to become a separate event again as being down the mix in a swiss might not be a sufficiently precise was of determining the top 4. Also current rating differences having the top 10 women in the same pool might overly weaken the Aust Ch. Of course, this should not preclude suitably qualified women from also taking part in the Australian Championship.

Doesnt the australian womens champion come from the australian open tournament, not the australian championship? :?
Yes.
Well spotted. =D>

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 10:19 AM
However, the women's champ might need to become a separate event again as being down the mix in a swiss might not be a sufficiently precise was of determining the top 4. Also current rating differences having the top 10 women in the same pool might overly weaken the Aust Ch. Of course, this should not preclude suitably qualified women from also taking part in the Australian Championship.

Doesnt the australian womens champion come from the australian open tournament, not the australian championship? :?

Selective quoting again? You left out this very important piece...


I don't know much about women's chess

:D

However, same arguments pretty much hold up. You'd probably want a separate event. Although the inclusion of the top 10 women probably would not an as weakening effect on the field.

ursogr8
20-01-2004, 10:29 AM
These the top 10 females in australia

1. 2180!! 9 NSW Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM]
2. 2134!! 0 QLD Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM]
3. 2110! 6 NSW Eriksson, Ingela
4. 2056! 0 NSW Sarai, Slavica [WFM]
5. 2028! 0 SA Nguyen, Giang
6. 1981! 6 NSW Dekic, Biljana [WIM]
7. 1880!! 4 NSW Lip, Catherine [WFM]
8. 1862! 0 NSW Moylan, Laura A [WIM]
9. 1856! 0 WA Mills, Natalie
10. 1853! 9 NSW Klimenko, Veronica [WFM]

Number 11 is nancy lane with a rating fo 1793



Not a Victorian resident amongst this group. :shock:
(Although Natalie has played locally)

That presents CV with perhaps their first challenge for their about-to-be-written business plan.
Some candidates already (Narelle Szuveges, Edyta Rozycki, Michelle Lee) for assistance.

starter

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 03:33 PM
I would opine that is not of similar weight.

So would I perhaps - but in the opposite direction. We know that sometimes people could be unable to play in the Aus Champs even if it is a selection event (for whatever reason, medical or other disasters for starters). We don't know that serious candidates would ever not apply for the Olympiad because of potential selector bias, it is still supposition that what you've suggested would even can happen at all.


How many players have finished in the top 6 of the Aust Champ in the last 10 years? Certainly less than 30, probably in the range of 15-20 without checking.

Sounds about right. Actually you may find the difference between the number of people finishing in the top 6 and the number going to the Olympiad is not so great over such a time scale, but that comparison would be distorted by top players not always competing in one or applying for the other.


This comment was meant in jest, right? I can see the headline, Aust Finishes a credible 29th at the Chess Olympiad. Stop the press! Hold the front page! I suggest that a human interest piece might have more chance of making it to print.

We do have chess sections in some newspapers and I know their readership is much wider than just the serious chess community (I even read the bridge sections sometimes even though I don't know all the rules!) I don't think the value of steady good publicity within these sections through good performances should be overlooked.


Not many analogies bear close scrutiny, however can you really compare the swiss draw at a Tasmanian weekender with that of the Australian Championship? A 900 point mismatch is unlikely in any round of the Ch.

This is true but Swiss system quirks can happen at any level. Lately we've been lucky to have decent-sized fields that cut down the risks, but if you've got only 16 players (as in Mingara) for an 11-round Swiss irregularities towards the end of an event can be expected, some of the top seeds are going to get a few essentially free points while others might not.


I don't think either system is completely right or completely wrong. It is more complex than that. Certainly just saying it is wrong, doesn't make it so. I would say there are positives and negatives for both sides, and it is a matter of weighing them up objectively.

Agreed.


No different to the possibility of a selector favouring a player from their state, is it?

There are some differences. Firstly a selector's vote is confidential to the players, so the player doesn't know if the mate is "letting him down" or not. Secondly a biased vote would have a chance of being cancelled out by the votes of the other selectors, whereas if two players decided to rig a game and did it carefully enough there would be no way of stopping it, especially if the sought-after result was a draw. And rigged games are much worse publicity because although the proof is seldom conclusive, it seems much easier to present a case that a game was rigged. Accusations of bias are easy to make but difficult to make convincingly, especially when the general public don't even get to see which selector voted which way.


To do a fair study you would need to take into account the other potential advantages I outlined. The incentive that certain olympiad selection would give players to perform well at the Aust Champs in particular.

I'd agree with that.


Then perhaps yes you would get a significant difference, however perhaps not ni the direction you expect. ;)

I doubt that the incentive would make much difference, except that a GM who fell off the pace would probably go into draw mode and settle for 3rd or 4th rather than take risks to try to win the event and risk falling out of the top 6.

There are other countries which select some places through events so it would be possible (but difficult) to get and look at some data from them.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 03:42 PM
Does anyone know how Russia selects their team or how the Soviet Union did in the past.

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 03:57 PM
Thanks for the reply but I feel the debate is pretty much petering out now. The only bit I felt inclined to reply to was the following. Sorry if that is disappointing.


There are some differences. Firstly a selector's vote is confidential to the players, so the player doesn't know if the mate is "letting him down" or not. Secondly a biased vote would have a chance of being cancelled out by the votes of the other selectors, whereas if two players decided to rig a game and did it carefully enough there would be no way of stopping it, especially if the sought-after result was a draw. And rigged games are much worse publicity because although the proof is seldom conclusive, it seems much easier to present a case that a game was rigged. Accusations of bias are easy to make but difficult to make convincingly, especially when the general public don't even get to see which selector voted which way.

An important difference the other way is that you need a favourable position in the final couple of rounds to rig a result of any consequence. No doubt it happens but it is not always in the players ability to make it so all the time. Whereas selectors may be applying bias subliminally at any time.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 04:04 PM
An important difference the other way is that you need a favourable position in the final couple of rounds to rig a result of any consequence.

Acknowledged - at least one player does.


No doubt it happens but it is not always in the players ability to make it so all the time. Whereas selectors may be applying bias subliminally at any time.

True, but again a player needs to be reasonably close to selection standard before a selector can pick them in the top 6 without the bias being obvious (and bias obvious even only to the other selectors would probably be enough to make sure that person was not a selector again). In either case, only those who are borderline on the selection criterion used have real potential to benefit.

Rincewind
20-01-2004, 04:37 PM
True, but again a player needs to be reasonably close to selection standard before a selector can pick them in the top 6 without the bias being obvious (and bias obvious even only to the other selectors would probably be enough to make sure that person was not a selector again). In either case, only those who are borderline on the selection criterion used have real potential to benefit.

Agreed but I think there will generally be at least one player from Vic, NSW and Qld who is in selection contention.

Perhaps now we should organise a poll and see if I've been able to move anyone outside their comfort zone. It would be good if we could get a reasonable level of response and a correlation with rating and state but there is only so much the BB poll can do.

Perhaps I can do something myself.

chesslover
20-01-2004, 05:37 PM
Regardless of all that, your way of responding to those who support the abolition of appeals is totally uncalled for.

I apologise if I offended anyone. I do feel passionately about fair play, and the need to be democratic, transparent and accountable.

I also did not think that compared to some of the vicious attacks that I have been subject to, that my responses were particularly uncalled for - and wish that the Grand Poobah will also display his sense of fair play by intervening when others who support the abolition of appeals also respond in inapproriate ways.

Nonetheless apologies if anyone was upset by the way I responded

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 05:45 PM
I also did not think that compared to some of the vicious attacks that I have been subject to, that my responses were particularly uncalled for - and wish that the Grand Poobah will also display his sense of fair play by intervening when others who support the abolition of appeals also respond in inapproriate ways.

There's a difference between commenting as a poster and intervening as a moderator - I've done none of the latter on this thread so far.

chesslover
20-01-2004, 05:48 PM
* Incidentally in all the discussion of how meaningful the finishing order and tie-breaks are down to number 6 we should remember that you would often only have to finish 8th or 9th, since there would be cases of players who don't want to go or are ineligible.

* I'm not rabidly for or against an appeals process though I think if there is such a thing it neeeds to be tightened up to only allow appeals against blatant injustices or breaches of the rules or criteria - there should be no such thing as an unsuccessful appeal. In all the recent cases I'm sure the complainants genuinely thought they were better than the player selected and they were probably right about half the time, but the disruption they caused far outweighed the benefit of having a mechanism that theoretically would have righted any wrongdoing if any had happened.



1. Yes good point about the women's Olympiad team, as relatively few have been active

2. Again very good and well made point about the fact that if the top 6 were simply chosen from the Champs, you could conceivably go down further than 10, as not all who would be eligible could afford or want to represent Australia in the Olympiad :shock:

3. Disagree with you about the appeals however. How can there be no such thing as an unsuccesful appeal - what you are stating is that appeals should only be undertaken where it is 100% certain to succeed - but nothing is that certain in life. Instead if you had stated that there should be no such things as a vexacious appeal, or an appeal not made in good faith I would think it was a good idea.

If however an appeleant thought they had a good claim, and it was in good faith, then yes that appeal should be undertaken within the ACF. Sure there will be disruptions, but that is part and parcel of being selected - I think the adage better a hundred guilty men walk free, than let a innocent man die is apt here

chesslover
20-01-2004, 05:55 PM
From the NECG discussion, I think it is fair to say majority of the posters believes there should be no appeals - and CL is the one attacking all those people UNDEMOCRATIC. He went further by publishing the contact details of the sponsors, I call that an act of sabotage! :evil:

I think most reasonable people would agree it is not undemocratic if an issue was extensively debated and voted on. The outcome no matter you like it or not is a democratic one because that is what the majority want. There are codes and rules for all sports. If our chess governing body decided no appeals allowed then that is that. We can never stop any one taking the ACF to court, but at least we know the cost factor alone would ensure the person considering such action to have strong conviction/case on the matter.



1. In regards to the point about teh NECG contact details being seen as sobatage :evil: , you arewrong. The information I posted was merely in the website of the NECG people, and I put it in the BB so that anyone who felt that they had no recourse, had no fairness and were stuck with living with a blatantly unfair selection process had an alternative recourse to teh costly court process. I call what I did empowering the individual to take on a uncaring, un fair, un responsivness organisation which has abandoned all sense of fairplay, accountability and transparency

2. Yes I accept that democracy rules, and you sometimes do not like what a democratic outcome delivers.

3. But you again saying that cost should be a deterent to appeals is wrong. If a person feels they have stronmg grounds they should appeal, and not be subjected to cost considerations for this. Like I stated to Bill in previous posts, justice is not just for the wealthy

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 06:00 PM
If however an appeleant thought they had a good claim, and it was in good faith, then yes that appeal should be undertaken within the ACF. Sure there will be disruptions, but that is part and parcel of being selected - I think the adage better a hundred guilty men walk free, than let a innocent man die is apt here
That is only apt in the case where a person's life is on the line.

In other cases all it generally means is that crooks get off either too lightly or on a technicality resulting in justice neither being done or seen to be done.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 06:04 PM
On the women's team activity thing, it's really an Olympiad applicant's problem if they choose only to play a handful of games. Unless their form has been spec(k)tacular, or even if it has been, they run the risk that the selectors will rank them cautiously. More form on the board would make it easier on the selectors for sure, but I'm not sure that we should force it on people (as used to be the case with the now-abolished activity rule.)

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 06:16 PM
From the NECG discussion, I think it is fair to say majority of the posters believes there should be no appeals - and CL is the one attacking all those people UNDEMOCRATIC. He went further by publishing the contact details of the sponsors, I call that an act of sabotage! :evil:

I think most reasonable people would agree it is not undemocratic if an issue was extensively debated and voted on. The outcome no matter you like it or not is a democratic one because that is what the majority want. There are codes and rules for all sports. If our chess governing body decided no appeals allowed then that is that. We can never stop any one taking the ACF to court, but at least we know the cost factor alone would ensure the person considering such action to have strong conviction/case on the matter.



1. In regards to the point about teh NECG contact details being seen as sobatage :evil: , you arewrong. The information I posted was merely in the website of the NECG people, and I put it in the BB so that anyone who felt that they had no recourse, had no fairness and were stuck with living with a blatantly unfair selection process had an alternative recourse to teh costly court process. I call what I did empowering the individual to take on a uncaring, un fair, un responsivness organisation which has abandoned all sense of fairplay, accountability and transparency

Don't start this rubbish again. :rolleyes:
You were wrong when you posted this the first time and you are wrong again now.
There was absolutely NO need for you to post that information on the old ACF BB.
If someone wanted it they could have found it out themselves.
Hell they could have even phoned the company directly and obtained it.

You had no right to do so and possibly damage what is a benefit to the entire junior chess community.

All you did was potentially sabotage a sponsorship deal.

What you did was a disgrace. :x

As for your regarding abandoning all sense of fair play etc comments that is just more rubbish.

Prior to the Depas case there was no appeals process. No one had been complaining about this being the case.
After the Depas case the legal advice said there was no need for an appeals process.
However it was decided to add an appeals process.
The addition of it has not exactly improved the situation.
We were better off prior to its intoduction.




3. But you again saying that cost should be a deterent to appeals is wrong. If a person feels they have stronmg grounds they should appeal, and not be subjected to cost considerations for this. Like I stated to Bill in previous posts, justice is not just for the wealthy
You keep carrying on about democracy but choose to ignore it when does not suit your purpose.
Justice is available to all not just the wealthy.
Let them take the ACF to court.
If they win then they will be awared costs etc.
If they lose then they were just wasting everyones time to start with.

=; =;

WBA
20-01-2004, 06:46 PM
I did not actually suggest banning the player or removing their rating. It was me mate peanbrain who suggested that. But I do take ownership of the smear campaign idea. You can do this, I'm sure, in a perfectly legit way - that is, without being accused of 'defamation' or whatever. I just think of it as another method of winning an argument. That's all. And please don't listen to my other highly emotional, high-strung mate, CL. He's an admirable chap who's always speaking up for the common battler.

AR

Gday AR

Yeah I know that, just suggesting in regards to the smearing of chess personalities is an undesirable action by the ACF, though I am sure they woudl not engage in that sort of conduct

Ian Rout
20-01-2004, 07:10 PM
On the women's team activity thing, it's really an Olympiad applicant's problem if they choose only to play a handful of games. Unless their form has been spec(k)tacular, or even if it has been, they run the risk that the selectors will rank them cautiously.

Certainly they run that risk, but it would be interesting to know, if Kevin is allowed to tell us, whether the selectors really do think that way. The selectors could on the one hand reason that a relatively inactive applicant has shown little evidence that they can play at their old level and so assume by default that they can't, or could reason that there is no evidence that they are any better or worse and so assume that they are about as good as they were before. Which way does it go?

Is the abolition of the minimum games requirement implying that inactivity is not to be held against applicants, or merely that the rule is pointless as applicants could rack up games in meaningless low-key events?

shaun
20-01-2004, 09:07 PM
Is the abolition of the minimum games requirement implying that inactivity is not to be held against applicants, or merely that the rule is pointless as applicants could rack up games in meaningless low-key events?

At the risk of being wrong here is what I was told happened, although I will leave most names out to protect the innocent.
The minimum games requirement was removed during the last reorganisation of ACF selection procedures. When this was queried, the response was that the selectors would take into account a players activity when making a selection.
It is pretty obvious that in at least one case this wasn't done. Can anyone on the previous Olympiad selection panel, who just by chance may be reading this bulletin board, state whether instructions concerning this change were ever passed on to you?
As for the Womens Olympiad team, past history has shown that the more inactive the player the more likely they are to be selected. This has lead, at least in my opinion, to a culture of the leading female players only coming out to play when the Olympiad is on, and spending the rest of their time on non chess related activities.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2004, 09:52 PM
The minimum games requirement was removed during the last reorganisation of ACF selection procedures. When this was queried, the response was that the selectors would take into account a players activity when making a selection.
It is pretty obvious that in at least one case this wasn't done.

"take into account" doesn't mean that it has to be an overriding concern.


Can anyone on the previous Olympiad selection panel, who just by chance may be reading this bulletin board, state whether instructions concerning this change were ever passed on to you?

None whatsoever.


As for the Womens Olympiad team, past history has shown that the more inactive the player the more likely they are to be selected. This has lead, at least in my opinion, to a culture of the leading female players only coming out to play when the Olympiad is on, and spending the rest of their time on non chess related activities.

I can only speak for last time personally - I don't think any of those picked had been very inactive. The most inactive applicant wasn't picked.

chesslover
20-01-2004, 10:20 PM
1. In regards to the point about teh NECG contact details being seen as sobatage :evil: , you arewrong. The information I posted was merely in the website of the NECG people, and I put it in the BB so that anyone who felt that they had no recourse, had no fairness and were stuck with living with a blatantly unfair selection process had an alternative recourse to teh costly court process. I call what I did empowering the individual to take on a uncaring, un fair, un responsivness organisation which has abandoned all sense of fairplay, accountability and transparency

Don't start this rubbish again. :rolleyes:
You were wrong when you posted this the first time and you are wrong again now.
There was absolutely NO need for you to post that information on the old ACF BB.
If someone wanted it they could have found it out themselves.
Hell they could have even phoned the company directly and obtained it.

You had no right to do so and possibly damage what is a benefit to the entire junior chess community.

All you did was potentially sabotage a sponsorship deal.

What you did was a disgrace. :x

As for your regarding abandoning all sense of fair play etc comments that is just more rubbish.

Prior to the Depas case there was no appeals process. No one had been complaining about this being the case.
After the Depas case the legal advice said there was no need for an appeals process.
However it was decided to add an appeals process.
The addition of it has not exactly improved the situation.
We were better off prior to its intoduction.


You have no right to speak to me in this tone of voice :x

What I did in the NECG was correct, and I am happy with my actions in this regard. I empowered any of the people who may have felt they had no recourse due to the no appeal policy. If you think that is wrong, then I am happy to be wrong, and i will do it again, by expressing my freedom of speech. Last time, I looked it was still a democracy in Australia.

Once again, I state that the information I posted was PUBLICALLY available, and I did not breach any privacy, nor publish any contact address that was not in their website.

If the sponsors walk away because of people not selected contacting them, the fault is not mine, nor the people who appealed to the NECG - but rather the people who instituted the no appeal policy. It was because of the unaccountable, unfair, and non transparent no appeal policy that people would have been driven to contact the NECG to appeal to.

Rather than blame me for empowering the individual, blame the no appeal policy if this was to happen. The sabotage and damage to junior chess would have caused by the no appeals policy which forced juniors, parents, family, friends, coaches to contact the NECG executive, as the only other option was to go with the costly court appeal process.

I must also say that I am very surprsied, that people on this BB who preach and go on infinitum about democracy, justice, accountability, fairness are agreeable to the no appeal policy. I guess it is good to know what sort of people they really are when confronted with a practicable demonstration of their theoratical principles. It is only in tough times that you know the character of a man.

And while you may be happy to remove the appeal process, and force people who have legitimate grounds to go to a costly court appeal process I am not. From the posts of others, neither are a significant proportion of the BB.

To me it is better to keep the whole appeals in house, avoid costly court litigation, ensure accountability in the selection process, enable integrity and transparency, and fix obvious bias and mistakes by being the first point of contact.

Maybe if I was rich like you, Mr Moneybags, I too would think that going to the court to appeal is fine. However even though I am firmly in the middleclass, the stress and affordability of going to court, the partner and kids, mortgage, other priorities would deter me - even if I knew I was in the right

george
20-01-2004, 11:08 PM
There are no appeals on NECG because of the many variables / intangibles on which by definition the children have to be selected.

Anyone can sabotage anything - it doesnt take intellect to do that - the ACF is going to do everything in its power to make it work.

The ACF Council will keep a running review of the system and recommend any changes to be instituted for the 2005 intake.

If ANYONE has theories , initiatives etc that they think will ASSIST the ACF in making the NECG Junior Squad more effective notify your State's , Territries ACF Councillor and if you can convince them then your point will be raised at the appropriate ACF Council meeting.

Regards
George Howard

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 11:27 PM
1. In regards to the point about teh NECG contact details being seen as sobatage :evil: , you arewrong. The information I posted was merely in the website of the NECG people, and I put it in the BB so that anyone who felt that they had no recourse, had no fairness and were stuck with living with a blatantly unfair selection process had an alternative recourse to teh costly court process. I call what I did empowering the individual to take on a uncaring, un fair, un responsivness organisation which has abandoned all sense of fairplay, accountability and transparency

Don't start this rubbish again. :rolleyes:
You were wrong when you posted this the first time and you are wrong again now.
There was absolutely NO need for you to post that information on the old ACF BB.
If someone wanted it they could have found it out themselves.
Hell they could have even phoned the company directly and obtained it.

You had no right to do so and possibly damage what is a benefit to the entire junior chess community.

All you did was potentially sabotage a sponsorship deal.

What you did was a disgrace. :x

As for your regarding abandoning all sense of fair play etc comments that is just more rubbish.

Prior to the Depas case there was no appeals process. No one had been complaining about this being the case.
After the Depas case the legal advice said there was no need for an appeals process.
However it was decided to add an appeals process.
The addition of it has not exactly improved the situation.
We were better off prior to its intoduction.


You have no right to speak to me in this tone of voice :x
Look you moron, I have very right to talk to you in that tone of voice. :x
It is after all a democracy or is it only a democracy when you want to speak.


What I did in the NECG was correct, and I am happy with my actions in this regard. I empowered any of the people who may have felt they had no recourse due to the no appeal policy. If you think that is wrong, then I am happy to be wrong, and i will do it again, by expressing my freedom of speech. Last time, I looked it was still a democracy in Australia.

Once again, I state that the information I posted was PUBLICALLY available, and I did not breach any privacy, nor publish any contact address that was not in their website.

If the sponsors walk away because of people not selected contacting them, the fault is not mine, nor the people who appealed to the NECG - but rather the people who instituted the no appeal policy. It was because of the unaccountable, unfair, and non transparent no appeal policy that people would have been driven to contact the NECG to appeal to.

Rather than blame me for empowering the individual, blame the no appeal policy if this was to happen. The sabotage and damage to junior chess would have caused by the no appeals policy which forced juniors, parents, family, friends, coaches to contact the NECG executive, as the only other option was to go with the costly court appeal process.

I must also say that I am very surprsied, that people on this BB who preach and go on infinitum about democracy, justice, accountability, fairness are agreeable to the no appeal policy. I guess it is good to know what sort of people they really are when confronted with a practicable demonstration of their theoratical principles. It is only in tough times that you know the character of a man.

And while you may be happy to remove the appeal process, and force people who have legitimate grounds to go to a costly court appeal process I am not. From the posts of others, neither are a significant proportion of the BB.
What a load of crock.
If you look at the old ACF BB it is clear that you were in a very small minority who would have been hard pressed to fit in a phone booth who believed there should have been a NECG appeal process.
Also the the court appeal would not be costly if they win.
If they lose, well they shouldnt have been wasting peoples time in the first place. #-o



To me it is better to keep the whole appeals in house, avoid costly court litigation, ensure accountability in the selection process, enable integrity and transparency, and fix obvious bias and mistakes by being the first point of contact.
Why can you not get it thru your thick head that there is no need for an appeals process.
There is none in cricket or football or many other sports.
Why is chess different.


Maybe if I was rich like you, Mr Moneybags, I too would think that going to the court to appeal is fine. However even though I am firmly in the middleclass, the stress and affordability of going to court, the partner and kids, mortgage, other priorities would deter me - even if I knew I was in the right
Listen dipshit, I'm just as middle class as the next person.
It so happens I'm single, no kids, no mortgage. It makes a difference. 8)

As for things deterring you, well I guess thats just a case of no guts, no glory. :-''

Garvinator
20-01-2004, 11:38 PM
[As for things deterring you, well I guess thats just a case of no guts, no glory. :-''

no it would be a case of valueing higher putting food on the table for wife and children than launching an appeal in the courts.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 11:47 PM
[As for things deterring you, well I guess thats just a case of no guts, no glory. :-''

no it would be a case of valueing higher putting food on the table for wife and children than launching an appeal in the courts.
Ah, but if it was a matter of principle then surely the highly principled CL would be compelled to take it to court.
If its not a matter of principle then hes just been wasting our time in this entire thread.

Garvinator
20-01-2004, 11:49 PM
Ah, but if it was a matter of principle then surely the highly principled CL would be compelled to take it to court.
If its not a matter of principle then hes just been wasting our time in this entire thread.

I have wondered why this is being debated again. everyone has had their say previously in nceg and other threads, so im yet to see anything really new here :(

chesslover
20-01-2004, 11:59 PM
I guess the appeal issue about Olympiad selection is not something that we can come to an agreeable conclusion on. I think the consensus is that we should continue with the ACF appeals, but make the fee higher than the current $100

The other major issue raised in this thread was Barry's proposal to select the Olympiad Squads (Open and Women) automaticaly through the performance at the Australian Champs. I think most agreed that whilst it was a good idea, choosing all 6 was not, and that maybe only some of the squad should be chosen automaticaly through the Aust Champs

I also proposed that having teh grandprix winner also being an automatci entry into the Squad, but it seems that the australia's premier chess circuit winner does not deserve that honour :(

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2004, 12:03 AM
I guess the appeal issue about Olympiad selection is not something that we can come to an agreeable conclusion on. I think the consensus is that we should continue with the ACF appeals, but make the fee higher than the current $100
The current fee is a miserable $50.


The other major issue raised in this thread was Barry's proposal to select the Olympiad Squads (Open and Women) automaticaly through the performance at the Australian Champs. I think most agreed that whilst it was a good idea, choosing all 6 was not, and that maybe only some of the squad should be chosen automaticaly through the Aust Champs
I'm not sure that it was agreed that it was a good idea at all.
I thought Kevin raised a number of significant issues with it.

Kevin Bonham
21-01-2004, 12:49 AM
Certainly they run that risk, but it would be interesting to know, if Kevin is allowed to tell us, whether the selectors really do think that way. The selectors could on the one hand reason that a relatively inactive applicant has shown little evidence that they can play at their old level and so assume by default that they can't, or could reason that there is no evidence that they are any better or worse and so assume that they are about as good as they were before. Which way does it go?

If you rounded up everything that is on the public record about the last selections you would probably see some evidence that it is more like the former than the latter. Speck was a very unusual case as a player whose only significant form was one result far above his rating in a major event. Different views on what to do about Speck were taken by different selectors (it's already on the public record via the results of Gluzman's appeal that we were split between Speck, Gluzman and Smerdon).


Is the abolition of the minimum games requirement implying that inactivity is not to be held against applicants, or merely that the rule is pointless as applicants could rack up games in meaningless low-key events?

It just gives the selectors more options to pick people who had not met the old requirements. It doesn't mean they have to use that option (and yes, there is not much sense in forcing people to rack up meaningless results.)

Rincewind
21-01-2004, 12:51 AM
I'm not sure that it was agreed that it was a good idea at all.
I thought Kevin raised a number of significant issues with it.

I don't think there was too much agreement, per se. Points were conceded either side but basicaly it comes down to which system people blieve will produce the best results.

I think it was Ian who observed that selection by tournament would assist with the women's team due to the low activity (and therefore less confidence in the ratings) of several of the top rated Ausralian women.

I was thinking about writing a page which can be used to poll opinions and correlated with geographic and rating demographics. Iwas thinking something alog the line of a page with 3 questions

selection method preference
Rating bracket (intervals to be decided)
State Association

I've never had more than 18 responses to any of my surveys before but perhaps with some advertising we can get a good turnout. IP Addresses will also be logged to look for people trying to stack the poll.

This might take a couple of days so that people can think about and let some of the points made, sink in. Also the aforementioned Warlords campaign taking soooo much time. ;)

peanbrain
21-01-2004, 06:19 AM
Ah, but if it was a matter of principle then surely the highly principled CL would be compelled to take it to court.
If its not a matter of principle then hes just been wasting our time in this entire thread.

I have wondered why this is being debated again. everyone has had their say previously in nceg and other threads, so im yet to see anything really new here :(

Well you have to blame our little dictator friend bushlover ... I mean chesslover.

CL exercise this strange "selective democracy" system where if the majority of chess players agree with no appeals - he revent to personal attack and name calling. Nevermind he's one man army, as long as he believes there should be an appeal process, then stuff what the majority want.

bushlover let me ask you again - would you accept the outcome if majority of chess players through their state bodies voted not to entertain appeals?? :rolleyes:

shaun
21-01-2004, 10:01 AM
The minimum games requirement was removed during the last reorganisation of ACF selection procedures. When this was queried, the response was that the selectors would take into account a players activity when making a selection.
It is pretty obvious that in at least one case this wasn't done.

"take into account" doesn't mean that it has to be an overriding concern.

In my attempt to protect the innocent I have probably understated the intent of the questioning. The intention of the question was to ask why the minimum games requirement was removed, given that this was considered by the ACF (and the questioner) to be an overriding concern, and the response did indicate to the questioner that a) yes, it is still an overriding concern but b) the responsibility falls to the selectors to enforce this.



Can anyone on the previous Olympiad selection panel, who just by chance may be reading this bulletin board, state whether instructions concerning this change were ever passed on to you?

None whatsoever.
So I'm assuming what was said to officials during the review process did not become part of policy once the procedures were agreed to.




As for the Womens Olympiad team, past history has shown that the more inactive the player the more likely they are to be selected. This has lead, at least in my opinion, to a culture of the leading female players only coming out to play when the Olympiad is on, and spending the rest of their time on non chess related activities.

I can only speak for last time personally - I don't think any of those picked had been very inactive. The most inactive applicant wasn't picked.

I was refering to previous selections (including 2000), going back 10-15 years.

BTW The reason I'm still not dropping names, even though it would make my posts easier to read, is to avoid people using this discussion as fuel to inflame other threads on this BB.

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2004, 10:15 AM
In my attempt to protect the innocent I have probably understated the intent of the questioning. The intention of the question was to ask why the minimum games requirement was removed, given that this was considered by the ACF (and the questioner) to be an overriding concern, and the response did indicate to the questioner that a) yes, it is still an overriding concern but b) the responsibility falls to the selectors to enforce this.
I wonder if those that voted to change the by-law at the time were aware that the minimum game requirement had been removed.

Trent Parker
21-01-2004, 03:33 PM
[quote="chesslover"]Who will get selected for the Australian Olympiad squad this year?


The other 2 spots are wide open. As the joint Australian Champ,Speck was I believe a good choice last year, but this year, Speck and Gluzman have not played in the Australian Champs. neither did Jean paul wallace. Smeardon I thought would have been a good chance, but he had a disapointing Australian Champs by his standard. Chapman, Tao, Solomon all I though played well in the Champs. [quote]

I know that this thread is already gone a long way already (and I haven[t had time to read it all) but wouldn't john-paul wallace still be a possibility even knowing he did not play in the Australian champs? After all JPW is somewhere in Scandinavia at the moment.

BTW where is the olympiad being played this year? it is probably written somewhere.

arosar
21-01-2004, 03:45 PM
Majorca, Spain.

I think from 14 Oct to 31 Oct.

AR

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 09:31 PM
Bonjour,


Just though I would add this scenario.

A bunch of clowns get around a table and decide who ought to represent Australia.

The first clown claims knowledge of the facts but has never been rated over 2000.
The second clown chooses player X over player Y because he prefers players who play nice attacking chess, compared to solid defence.

The third clown compares graphs,tables and results, analysing the decision from brutal facts, unable to comprehend why it is that "not all animals are equal"
The fourth clown chooses objective ratings as criteria, as if there is such a thing as objectivity. ( ;) Don't mention WA).
The fifth clown chooses any wunderkid who got over 50% in the OZ champs under the age of 12. (Man is that gonna be a J curve ;) )

Hopefully Matt will come back soon and announce- " A classic case of emperors without clothes"

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 09:45 PM
The first clown claims knowledge of the facts but has never been rated over 2000.
Then based on your logic on that criteria alone your opinions regarding how players qualify for the Australian Championships means your opinions are just a load of crap. :D

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 10:43 PM
Excellent rebuttal Bill !!! Bravo Bravo!!!! Did you learn that at Princeton or Harvard old chap???

:idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea:

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 10:46 PM
Excellent rebuttal Bill !!! Bravo Bravo!!!! Did you learn that at Princeton or Harvard old chap???

:idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea:
Since goats are not renowed for their brains I thought I would make it easy for you.
Guess I didnt make it easy enough.

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 11:04 PM
OMG- I'm stuck in one of Bills loops just like Jeo,Matt and *fill in whoever is applicable*

Quick,Quick, must generate randomn insult to keep the buttons being pushed.

errr,ummmm,errrrrrrrr,ummmmmmmm, jeeez Bill your a clown.

P.S ****DISCLAIMER***-this thread in no way represents the opinions of MCC. They are both personal and immature. Furthermore by responding to my opponenet I acknowledge that I am contributing to collective immaturity and irresponsibility. I wish to acknowledge that I am in no way related to Bill Gletsos and any inference to him as a living person is personally coincidental. I also acknowledge that the ACF has the right not to accept responsibility for anything Bill and I express. Furthermore I agree to let Bill call me a dipstick,moron,stupid,brainless etc etc as often represented on most of his vicous circle debates, on the proviso that I get to call him a clown occasionally. I further acknowledge the fact that calling me a Nazi was an accident and besides it was far game considering what I called the VCA,CV or whoever.

;)

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 11:11 PM
OMG- I'm stuck in one of Bills loops just like Jeo,Matt and *fill in whoever is applicable*

Quick,Quick, must generate randomn insult to keep the buttons being pushed.

errr,ummmm,errrrrrrrr,ummmmmmmm, jeeez Bill your a clown.

P.S ****DISCLAIMER***-this thread in no way represents the opinions of MCC. They are both personal and immature. Furthermore by responding to my opponenet I acknowledge that I am contributing to collective immaturity and irresponsibility. I wish to acknowledge that I am in no way related to Bill Gletsos and any inference to him as a living person is personally coincidental. I also acknowledge that the ACF has the right not to accept responsibility for anything Bill and I express. Furthermore I agree to let Bill call me a dipstick,moron,stupid,brainless etc etc as often represented on most of his vicous circle debates, on the proviso that I get to call him a clown occasionally. I further acknowledge the fact that calling me a Nazi was an accident and besides it was far game considering what I called the VCA,CV or whoever.

;)
Is that really the best you can do.

You post one of your usual useless posts calling eveyone a clown based on your own skewed perception of reality.

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 11:14 PM
:idea:
Why don't we get rid of selection
:idea:
We could have qualifying tournaments instead.


Your essay consists of 5000 words or less, please choose from the following topics.

A- This bulletin board allows free vibrant discussion without fear of prejudice, Discuss

B- Selections mean selectors, Is this a society we want to create, Expand

C- "Laugh I cacked myself at how serious the clowns took themselves.....Meanwhile Bozo meant business"....Elaborate

Your essays will be marked according to ACF standards.
ACF- A real Institution *********

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 11:29 PM
:idea:
Why don't we get rid of selection
:idea:
We could have qualifying tournaments instead.
Not practical.

How could your mate Speck ever hope to improve by competing overseas if he had to play in a qualifying tournament back home.

Why should GM rogers have to lose potential income playing overseas just to satisfy some goats view.



Your essay consists of 5000 words or less, please choose from the following topics.

A- This bulletin board allows free vibrant discussion without fear of prejudice, Discuss

B- Selections mean selectors, Is this a society we want to create, Expand

C- "Laugh I cacked myself at how serious the clowns took themselves.....Meanwhile Bozo meant business"....Elaborate

Your essays will be marked according to ACF standards.
ACF- A real Institution *********

Dear goat,
thank you for you post.

However since you seem to be the one who wants to change the status quo the onus falls on you to provide a report supporting your view at to why their should be no selections for representating Australia in Oversaes events or playing in the Aus Championships.

Submit this report to the ACF via your State Association.

So far you have provided nothing.

Whilst you provide nothing you are just full of hot air.

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 07:34 AM
I did a little surfing last night to see if I could get any info on selection processes used by other national chess organisations.

The only one I could find any good data on was Canada (CFC),

They use the following selection criteria:

ii) The players
a) The Canadian National Team shall include 6 players
The winner of the most recent Canadian Closed and Zonal
Two players decided upon by the Selection Committee
The three highest rated players on the Selection Rating list
If any of the above declines the invitation to join the Canadian National Team then the replacement player will be chosen from the selection rating list outlined below

Only a third of their team is picked by selectors, one sixth by tournament qualification and one half by rating. Something to think about.

arosar
23-01-2004, 08:34 AM
I believe Philippines automatically selects the 3 GMs and 3 others who win some qualifying tourn.

Not sure, but I have been informed that Malaysia uses the following formula:

2 highest rated + 2 highest place + 2 nominees from their federation.

I got that info from ex-captain of Philippine Olympiad.

AR

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 09:35 AM
While we're talking about selection by rating, I will quickly mention an idea I had on handling inactive players.

When comparing ratings couldn't we take off the RD from published rating to give the "probable minumum rating". Then when comparing players we compare the PMRs.

For example:

Player A is 2400 with RD 120 - PMR 2280
Player B is 2350 with RD 050 - PMR 2300

So Player B (the 2350 rated player) is selected before the Player A as we have more confidence that the 2350 is accurate than the 2400.

This is analogous to the minimax method where you look to minimise your losses. IE You pick the team with the highest PMR (maximise your probable minimums) rather than the highest average rating.

Thoughts?

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 09:38 AM
I believe Philippines automatically selects the 3 GMs and 3 others who win some qualifying tourn.

What will they do when these GMs begin to be obviously weaker than other Filippino players who are not yet GMs?

arosar
23-01-2004, 09:47 AM
That's obviously a good question mate. In this same email, my contact in RP desribed the NCFP as 'stupid'.

AR

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 12:36 PM
Some more investigations reveal the USCF use an average for 4 "ratings".

Average of the 1) current published USCF rating at time of invitation; 2) current published FIDE rating at time of invitation; 3) peak published USCF rating (going back 24 months from time of invitation); 4) peak published FIDE rating (going back 24 months from time of invitation)

refer: http://www.uschess.org/tds/invitations.html

The Irish seem to select the current champion and players based on a complicated weighted rating and selectors can than alter rankings within a 10 point range. The source document can be found here:

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~acad/isc%20_statement_june2002.doc

shaun
23-01-2004, 12:41 PM
The USCF scheme has come in for some criticism as for the last 3 Olympiads they have basically picked the same players, and there standings have fallen from 2nd (in 1998) to around the 40's in 2002.
It's main problem is that rewards inactivity amongst the higher rated players. They only have to play enough to keep their ratings active, and as long as there are no absoulte disasters in their results, will get picked on the team.

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 12:45 PM
The USCF scheme has come in for some criticism as for the last 3 Olympiads they have basically picked the same players, and there standings have fallen from 2nd (in 1998) to around the 40's in 2002.
It's main problem is that rewards inactivity amongst the higher rated players. They only have to play enough to keep their ratings active, and as long as there are no absoulte disasters in their results, will get picked on the team.

Yeah. My "maximise probable minimum rating" approach would fix that problem. :D

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:16 PM
Excellent rebuttal Bill !!! Bravo Bravo!!!! Did you learn that at Princeton or Harvard old chap???

:idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea: no :idea:

very witty firegoat. I am glad that there is someone here who can stand up to Bill, and have witty put downs and cutting remarks in their responses to Bill...

While I mostly agree with Bill, in some of these topic about club rights, and the appeal mechanisms he and I do not see eye to eye

chesslover
23-01-2004, 05:19 PM
Some more investigations reveal the USCF use an average for 4 "ratings".

Average of the 1) current published USCF rating at time of invitation; 2) current published FIDE rating at time of invitation; 3) peak published USCF rating (going back 24 months from time of invitation); 4) peak published FIDE rating (going back 24 months from time of invitation)

The Irish seem to select the current champion and players based on a complicated weighted rating and selectors can than alter rankings within a 10 point range.

With all due respect, Deputy Grand Poobah, should we not see how the great chess nations, and greatest improving nations pick their team, and then see if it is appropriate and can be modified for the unique Australian chess scene?

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 06:16 PM
With all due respect, Deputy Grand Poobah, should we not see how the great chess nations, and greatest improving nations pick their team, and then see if it is appropriate and can be modified for the unique Australian chess scene?

I'm interested in how ANYONE picks their team.

But for suitability to application in Australia I would think countries of similar geography, population, chess strength and culture would be the most interesting.

Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.

Despite Russia's dominance of the sport, I'm not convinced by the argument that anything they do is right for us. They have a larger population, chess is much more a part of their culture and therefore they are really spoilt for choice when it comes to team selections.

Issues of distance, weekender culture, top players forced OS for consistently high standard of tournaments, etc are not challenges for the Russian Chess Federation. They are issues that the ACF and CFC probably share.

chesslover
23-01-2004, 11:51 PM
With all due respect, Deputy Grand Poobah, should we not see how the great chess nations, and greatest improving nations pick their team, and then see if it is appropriate and can be modified for the unique Australian chess scene?

I'm interested in how ANYONE picks their team.

But for suitability to application in Australia I would think countries of similar geography, population, chess strength and culture would be the most interesting.

Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.

Despite Russia's dominance of the sport, I'm not convinced by the argument that anything they do is right for us. They have a larger population, chess is much more a part of their culture and therefore they are really spoilt for choice when it comes to team selections.

Issues of distance, weekender culture, top players forced OS for consistently high standard of tournaments, etc are not challenges for the Russian Chess Federation. They are issues that the ACF and CFC probably share.

Good point, Deputy Grand Poobah, and I accept that.

Yes we should look at countries that we share similar comprable geography, population, chess strength, infrastructure, and see if they are doing significantly better than us in the Olympiad. If so, then we can look at emulating them...

Based on this, probably the closest match for us is Canada. South Africa may be close too but is there any others - not New Zealand (no geographical similarity)

Has canada "outperformed" in the Olympiad?

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 01:47 AM
Over the last 10 years it has shifted from Australia doing better to Canada doing better.

Bled 2002, Canada 33rd, Australia 53rd
Istanbul 2000, Canada 29th, Australia 36th
Elista 1998, Canada 42nd, Australia 63rd
Yerevan 1996, Australia 28th, Canada 29th
Moscow 1994, Australia 42nd, Canada 65th
Manila 1992, Australia 46th, Canada 54th

Not suggesting that any of this is because of their selection mechanisms but there is certainly no evidence to think our are obviously better. The main reason though is because CL asked.

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 03:27 AM
Just though I would add this scenario.

And I would add the scenario that one poster on this board has an avatar that is supposed to look inflammatory but actually looks both embarrassed and sunburnt. :shock:

As for your five clowns, I take it you mean me by the first one. Confirm or deny whether that is a reference to me, or I shall again leave you to runimate to yourself and any others bored enough to engage with you on this thread.

Now even if the first one is me, and ignoring both the non-sequitur and your own self-invalidation hence implied, who are the other four? Name names or cases, put up or shut up, if this is all just another round of firegoat's fantasies then I really can't be bothered engaging with it.

Garvinator
24-01-2004, 09:47 AM
Just though I would add this scenario.

And I would add the scenario that one poster on this board has an avatar that is supposed to look inflammatory but actually looks both embarrassed and sunburnt. :shock:

As for your five clowns, I take it you mean me by the first one. Confirm or deny whether that is a reference to me, or I shall again leave you to runimate to yourself and any others bored enough to engage with you on this thread.

Now even if the first one is me, and ignoring both the non-sequitur and your own self-invalidation hence implied, who are the other four? Name names or cases, put up or shut up, if this is all just another round of firegoat's fantasies then I really can't be bothered engaging with it.

kevin, kevin, kevin, tisk tisk ;) firegoat7 has so many questions from other posters that he hasnt dared answer that asking him to answer the very first question that was posed to him is rather pointless :P . You dont really expect him to answer do you?

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 11:39 AM
:idea:
Why don't we get rid of selection
:idea:
We could have qualifying tournaments instead.
Not practical.

How could your mate Speck ever hope to improve by competing overseas if he had to play in a qualifying tournament back home.

Why should GM rogers have to lose potential income playing overseas just to satisfy some goats view.

Is 2 weeks every 2 years really a problem for any player? I would think they would have to arrange this much residency time anyway if they were to be eligible to represent Australia.

:idea: :idea: :idea:

How about using the most recent Aust Closed Champ as a qualification tournament. Top 3 place getters automatically qualify for the olympiad team.

Selectors can pick 1 team member.

Remain places are filled via rating using the Probable Minimum Rating formula (Rating - RD) off the latest ACF rating list.

:idea: :idea: :idea:

Certainly with only 1 place selector chosen would make the job of selections less onerous and open to accusation. This would provide a catchall to ensure an obviously strong player (who is not rated highly for some reason) doesn't miss out due to some unforeseen set of circumstances.

The three place getters from the Aust Champ would add meaning to this tournament. It will also give strong juniors something to strive for providing added impetus to the various school and junior championship tournaments.

The remaining places filled by rating will ensure high rated players don't miss out and the Probable Minimum calculation will encourage top player continue to participate in ACF rated events (if they desire olympiad selection).

The Womens team could us a similar model with 2 qualifiers from the Championship, 1 selector chosen and remaining filled by rating. The Minimum Probable formula would be more poignant in this case due to greater inactivity in the current group of elite Australian women.

Ok there is a model, where are the obvious flaws?

Ian Rout
24-01-2004, 12:20 PM
One flaw which I've alluded to earlier is that the logic of implementing such a system is that we are unhappy with the ability of a panel of experts to accurately choose the best team. But we are asked to have faith in a panel of experts to choose the best rating system with which to choose two of the team.

Another is that a player who persistently under-performed, or who was really only there for the holiday and wasn't even trying, would be dropped in any other sport but in this scheeme could keep their PMR up with a string of wins in low-grade G60 weekender games. Not to mention players fiddling the system by choosing their tournaments and sitting when their rating had peaked.

I feel if we are going to have an "objective" system then it has to be based on qualifying event(s).

Garvinator
24-01-2004, 12:29 PM
I feel if we are going to have an "objective" system then it has to be based on qualifying event(s).

I dont think there would be a single person who would rather have selection based on qualifying events, but as has been pointed out at length on here, the logistics of making the qualification system fair to all possible contenders is very difficult if not impossible.

I am working on an idea that might be possible to do, but I dont think people will like it :P

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 12:30 PM
I think one question that needs to be asked is do we even need to change the current system.

Its very easy to pontificate about this but is the current system actually broken.

Some candidates may feel they were hard done by but I wonder if those that apply for Olympiad selection would prefer another system or are overall happy with the current system of selections.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 01:02 PM
One flaw which I've alluded to earlier is that the logic of implementing such a system is that we are unhappy with the ability of a panel of experts to accurately choose the best team. But we are asked to have faith in a panel of experts to choose the best rating system with which to choose two of the team.

The rating system has a statistical basis for it use. It is also practically transparent (or could easily be made so).


Another is that a player who persistently under-performed, or who was really only there for the holiday and wasn't even trying, would be dropped in any other sport but in this scheeme could keep their PMR up with a string of wins in low-grade G60 weekender games. Not to mention players fiddling the system by choosing their tournaments and sitting when their rating had peaked.

The same thing could happen ubnder a selector system. Such a player would have to be one of the top 8 players based on probable minimum requirements. Given the difficulty in implementing this scenario I don't think it would be attractive to under-performers.


I feel if we are going to have an "objective" system then it has to be based on qualifying event(s).

The rating system is objective and practically transparent.

The one selector based member is there as a final check and measure.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 01:20 PM
I think one question that needs to be asked is do we even need to change the current system.

Its very easy to pontificate about this but is the current system actually broken.

Some candidates may feel they were hard done by but I wonder if those that apply for Olympiad selection would prefer another system or are overall happy with the current system of selections.

I think an objective, fair and transparent system would be seen an advantage to many prospective team candidates.

I can understand the use of selectors in team events and I know the olympiad is in effect a team event, however, it is more the collective effort of individuals than a true team sport (like soccer, for eaxmple). So selection of the whole team by a panel of selectors seems awry with what happens in other individual sports.

Further to this, one of the objectives of entering an Australian team in the Olympiad is to do well. The last 6 outings we have averaged 50th place.

I'm not putting down the efforts of any of the great players who have represented us at these events, but clearly there is room for improvement.

What's more, as I outlined ni previous posts, I believe these changes would also help invigorate chess in Australia. Not hugely but measureable which would have the effect of developing chess talent to a greater degree than is happening today.

Is it broken? I would say yes. Will my proposal fix it? Possibly not, but don't stifle the debate by pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 01:51 PM
Further to this, one of the objectives of entering an Australian team in the Olympiad is to do well. The last 6 outings we have averaged 50th place.

I'm not putting down the efforts of any of the great players who have represented us at these events, but clearly there is room for improvement.
Yes but suggesting they would have done better based on another method of selection is spurious at best.


What's more, as I outlined ni previous posts, I believe these changes would also help invigorate chess in Australia. Not hugely but measureable which would have the effect of developing chess talent to a greater degree than is happening today.

Is it broken? I would say yes. Will my proposal fix it? Possibly not, but don't stifle the debate by pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds.
I wasnt suggesting we stifle debate. However some of the proposals are not based on any factual evidence.

Now players may have been disappointed at not being selected but I dont recall any of them suggesting they wanted the system changed.
In fact it seems the push for change is more from those who are never likely to be contenders for selection rather than those that are.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 02:54 PM
Further to this, one of the objectives of entering an Australian team in the Olympiad is to do well. The last 6 outings we have averaged 50th place.

I'm not putting down the efforts of any of the great players who have represented us at these events, but clearly there is room for improvement.
Yes but suggesting they would have done better based on another method of selection is spurious at best.

You obviously wrote this before reading my last paragraph. I clearly made no such suggestion. I was merely offering an alternative model for debate. All my suggestions have been made in this way. I don't claim to know the answers but am offering ideas for discussion to perhaps discover a better system.



What's more, as I outlined ni previous posts, I believe these changes would also help invigorate chess in Australia. Not hugely but measureable which would have the effect of developing chess talent to a greater degree than is happening today.

Is it broken? I would say yes. Will my proposal fix it? Possibly not, but don't stifle the debate by pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds.
I wasnt suggesting we stifle debate. However some of the proposals are not based on any factual evidence.

Sorry, but "don't fix what ain't broke" does come across that way. Especially considering the obvious gap between where we are and where we would like to be in results.


Now players may have been disappointed at not being selected but I dont recall any of them suggesting they wanted the system changed.
In fact it seems the push for change is more from those who are never likely to be contenders for selection rather than those that are.

If we want to improve results there are basically two things we need to do. Have stronger players to send and send the strongest team. For reasons previously outlined I believe a qualification or partial qualification mechanism would address both these areas. Other initiatives (like the junior squad) will also be of great benefit to the first.

How do the ACF measure their performance to date w.r.t. Olympiad performance? Do they even have a goals? How about the selectors, is there an objective measure of their efforts?

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.

ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by FIDE.

Are fine objectives but they can't be called goals as they are not measureable. However given previous results I believe we should be aiming to finish around 25th at the olympiad as a goal. As previously noted, the current average is 50th. Obviously we can't be expected to get there overnight. So lets say by the 2008 olympiad. So by 2012 we should measure our performance at the 2008, 2010 and 2012 and if we didn't average 25th then we did not meet this goal. Obviously anything better than 50 is an improvement.

I think the ACF should use goals like this to drive policy creation and if 25th is seen as a goal we want to get to, come up with a plan to get there. Perhaps selection mechanism should be changed and if so a debate like this discussing possible advantages, polls of players opinions, dialogues with other national chess and other sporting bodies, etc should all be undertaken to develop this policy.

Ian Rout
24-01-2004, 03:11 PM
I think Barry's goal of 25th is a sensible sort of target, good enough to be an achievement but within the bounds of possibility. It should be remembered though that placing is a somewhat blunt instrument as a measurement of performance in the middle ranks of a Swiss. I recall (is this right?) that Australia was quite well placed with a couple of rounds to go in the last Olympiad but for that reason finished with some tough pairings.

Has anybody ever tried to work out some sort of "performance rating" of teams, e.g. based on the average rating of members, maybe weighted by the number of games they played (or maybe not, after all the team chooses who plays how many).

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 04:21 PM
If we concluded Australia was performing poorly on average, it would be hasty to assume that selection was the reason without exploring other possible explanations. For instance, does Australia have unusual trouble persuading leading players to make themselves available for Olympiads? How does our support for our Olympiad teams compare with other countries, etc?

Also it would be good to see if Australia is really strong enough to support a goal of 25th based on our chess strength. Perhaps form some kind of indicator of national playing strength based on ratings of top players and compare with others. Usually we are seeded well below 25th and perform accordingly, and I don't think selecting the top-rated team would make much difference to that.

Furthermore the women's team is selected by the same method so its results should be considered too.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 05:03 PM
If we concluded Australia was performing poorly on average, it would be hasty to assume that selection was the reason without exploring other possible explanations. For instance, does Australia have unusual trouble persuading leading players to make themselves available for Olympiads? How does our support for our Olympiad teams compare with other countries, etc?

Yes, all avenues for improvement should be investigated. However,if it is concluded that Australia is performing poorly on average, then it would be naive to assume the selection process was in the best possible shape, and so should not be spared investigation.

The thing about the selection process is it is relatively inexpensive to fix. In fact some suggestions would actually be cheaper than the current system. This should not be a primary motivation for making the change of course, but economically improvements to the selection process would give good "bang-for-buck".

Hiring a number of top notch European chess coaches and establishing a national chess acadamy would not doubt improve results too (over time) but off the current agenda on financial grounds.


Also it would be good to see if Australia is really strong enough to support a goal of 25th based on our chess strength. Perhaps form some kind of indicator of national playing strength based on ratings of top players and compare with others. Usually we are seeded well below 25th and perform accordingly, and I don't think selecting the top-rated team would make much difference to that.

You are just addressing one of the key factors. Selecting the strongest team. We should also look at increasing the strength players eligle for selection. I believe an objective selection process would actually help in both areas.


Furthermore the women's team is selected by the same method so its results should be considered too.

True and what works in the Open may not be approriate for the Women's team.
__________________________

As I also said earlier, I don't want to bash the players, the selectors, the public, tha ACF or anyone. I just want to get people thinking about how we might improve on the status quo.

I see the ACF having two roles. One is as an executive making operational decisions for national chess interests in this country. The other is a governance role in developing and implement policy to improve chess in this country. I'd like to see some of the second role applied to the olympiad issue. I think the olympiad is an important event in terms of the motivation it can supply to the elite ranks (senior and junior). Therefore we should look at ways to harness that motivation and use it to progress chess development in Australia.

As I said, I don't believe I have the solution but I think we can all contribute to improve on the current situation.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:35 PM
I think one question that needs to be asked is do we even need to change the current system.

Its very easy to pontificate about this but is the current system actually broken.


You are such a reactionary. If ut is not broke, do not fix it huh? John Howard would be so proud of you, Supreme Leader :P I bet you voted for the monarchy in the referendum :P

The fact that teh current system has been in place for some time, should not mean that we should not change it. It si only by constantly reviewing our actions and decisions, and making decisons on this basis that we can ever progress.

If primitive man had your attitude, we would still be in the stone age
:rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 05:36 PM
You are just addressing one of the key factors. Selecting the strongest team. We should also look at increasing the strength players eligle for selection. I believe an objective selection process would actually help in both areas.

We seem to have moved back towards discussing a semi-objective selection process more now, and one of the things that occurs to me is that if you do have full-strength Aussie Championships filling only three spots in the Olympiad, then those who will get those three spots will almost certainly be those who were walk-up starters for the Olympiad anyway. So where's the advantage in a semi-objective system compared to the current system? Or, if you include ratings in a country where one player has a large rating advantage over the rest, what's to say that player will actually bother to contest the Champs - do they need it for selection qualification?

Another issue that should be raised - appearance money. Under this model, should appearance money be paid for the Champs to ensure the top players actually bother to play in the Olympiad qualifier at all?

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:44 PM
I think an objective, fair and transparent system would be seen an advantage to many prospective team candidates.

I can understand the use of selectors in team events and I know the olympiad is in effect a team event, however, it is more the collective effort of individuals than a true team sport (like soccer, for eaxmple). So selection of the whole team by a panel of selectors seems awry with what happens in other individual sports.

Further to this, one of the objectives of entering an Australian team in the Olympiad is to do well. The last 6 outings we have averaged 50th place.

I'm not putting down the efforts of any of the great players who have represented us at these events, but clearly there is room for improvement.

What's more, as I outlined ni previous posts, I believe these changes would also help invigorate chess in Australia. Not hugely but measureable which would have the effect of developing chess talent to a greater degree than is happening today.

Is it broken? I would say yes. Will my proposal fix it? Possibly not, but don't stifle the debate by pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Well articulated barry :) It seems like Ponting, the leadership position as a Alternative Grand Poobah is bringing out the best in you :P

particularly good was the point you made, in relation to chess being more the collective effort of individuals than a true team sport like soccer, AFL or League

I, and from the thread I think most posters, like the system of automatic entry to the Olympiad based on the results of the Aust Champs.

If you maybe have half the team qualify liek that, you will address the concerns raised about people having a bad tournament, being overseas playing, or not being able to play due to personal reasons

While I take the point that Ian Rout made about the grandprix, maybe we can nominate certain events in the grandprix as "super grandprix events/ Australian chess grandslams" (say Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast) and based on the results of these tournaments we can get one automatic qualificaton to the grandprix. I think it is important to in someway have a connection betweem the grandprix performance and representative honours

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:49 PM
Another issue that should be raised - appearance money. Under this model, should appearance money be paid for the Champs to ensure the top players actually bother to play in the Olympiad qualifier at all?

WHY would you pay appearence money for the most important and prestigeous chess tourney in Australian chess? :?

Especially, if half/all the Open and Women's Olympiad is going to be chosen from the Aust Champs performace, there will be MORE incentive for the top players to attend - not less

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 06:02 PM
WHY would you pay appearence money for the most important and prestigeous chess tourney in Australian chess? :?

Especially, if half/all the Open and Women's Olympiad is going to be chosen from the Aust Champs performace, there will be MORE incentive for the top players to attend - not less

You couldn't pick the Women's Olympiad squad from Aus Champs performance unless you let a lot more women in the top division.

Anyway, it is currently the case (as I understand it) that Ian Rogers expects appearance money for playing in the Championship. Failed negotiations over this (at first nothing then too little too late) meant he didn't play in Melbourne, but this time I understand he was paid appearance money to play in Adelaide.

Under Barry's proposal Ian would not need to play the Championship at all, since he would be assured of one of the two spots on ratings. Obviously whether he played or not would have an impact on which of the players below him were able to qualify by rating, and which required qualification by tournament.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 06:27 PM
[
You couldn't pick the Women's Olympiad squad from Aus Champs performance unless you let a lot more women in the top division.

Anyway, it is currently the case (as I understand it) that Ian Rogers expects appearance money for playing in the Championship. Failed negotiations over this (at first nothing then too little too late) meant he didn't play in Melbourne, but this time I understand he was paid appearance money to play in Adelaide.

Under Barry's proposal Ian would not need to play the Championship at all, since he would be assured of one of the two spots on ratings. Obviously whether he played or not would have an impact on which of the players below him were able to qualify by rating, and which required qualification by tournament.

But this is a chicken and egg arguement. If you state that the Aust Champs will be used for 2 of the 4 women's Olympiad squad you will have more women entering and playing - including the top ones. As it is, it is better for the higher ranked women to not play, as a disasterous Champs may have adverse consequences for selection.

While I agree in general on barry's proposal, I do not agree with the top 2 on rating being chosen automatically - I think the active player with the top ACF ratings for the calender year, should have ONE spot (not two)

Also if the Champs are for automatic selction for half the squad, then you need to consider that appearence fees for the top players will afect the selection siginifcantly.

True, players who are already pre selected (top rating, maybe even grand prix winner) may not need to enter, but paying them appearence money to enter will alter the composition of the results and standing as a result of the matches they paly ie Rogers may win against Smerdon, lose against lane, draw against Chapman etc.

I think if the Aust Champs are used for automatic selection, it will draw all the top players who now do not play. While players like those with top ratings may not play, their absence will be offset by the increase in IMs and FMs and 2000+ players playing. Paying appearance money will then not be needed, and artificially influence the "natural order" of the universe - ie Rogers who would not play, is induced by appearance money to play, which causes Wallace (for example) to miss out, whereas if there was no appearence money and Rogers refused to play, the results and standing will be very different

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 06:32 PM
But this is a chicken and egg arguement. If you state that the Aust Champs will be used for 2 of the 4 women's Olympiad squad you will have more women entering and playing - including the top ones. As it is, it is better for the higher ranked women to not play, as a disasterous Champs may have adverse consequences for selection.
Understand this.
Very few women would get into the Aus Champs based on rating.

Also the final placing in a swiss for anything other than the first couple of places are just a lottery. Using it to determine Olympiad places for Women is just plain stupid.


I think if the Aust Champs are used for automatic selection, it will draw all the top players who now do not play. While players like those with top ratings may not play, their absence will be offset by the increase in IMs and FMs and 2000+ players playing.
Again this is incorrect.
The rating cutoff is 2150, therefore you are not going to get an increase in 2000+ players because they dont qualify.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 07:01 PM
You are just addressing one of the key factors. Selecting the strongest team. We should also look at increasing the strength players eligle for selection. I believe an objective selection process would actually help in both areas.

We seem to have moved back towards discussing a semi-objective selection process more now, and one of the things that occurs to me is that if you do have full-strength Aussie Championships filling only three spots in the Olympiad, then those who will get those three spots will almost certainly be those who were walk-up starters for the Olympiad anyway. So where's the advantage in a semi-objective system compared to the current system? Or, if you include ratings in a country where one player has a large rating advantage over the rest, what's to say that player will actually bother to contest the Champs - do they need it for selection qualification?

All my suggestions are proposed as strawmen, for people to tear to shred, burn in protest marches or whatever. The latest strawman mechanism is as follows...

Top 3 from the Aust Championships
1 chosen by a selection panel
Remainder filled on a rating basis.

You could say someone towering over all others in the rating system would not be encouraged to play in the Aust Champ for Olympiad selection. That is true. But it is the Aust Champ not merely an olympiad qualifier so hopefully the organisers of the Championship would sufficiently address this issue.

If saying the top 3 earn a spot in the team is a non-event then we shouldn't have an issue changing the selection model. :D Most of the time you are right but the certainty this would give competiters in the championship would do a lot in the motivation stakes.


Another issue that should be raised - appearance money. Under this model, should appearance money be paid for the Champs to ensure the top players actually bother to play in the Olympiad qualifier at all?

I don't think making the top 3 qualify for a spot in the olympiad should affect the appearance money. Performance in the Aust Champ are already a major decider in team selection so why should going from a subjective selection model to a transparent objective one change that?

chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:01 PM
Understand this.
Very few women would get into the Aus Champs based on rating.

Also the final placing in a swiss for anything other than the first couple of places are just a lottery. Using it to determine Olympiad places for Women is just plain stupid.

The rating cutoff is 2150, therefore you are not going to get an increase in 2000+ players because they dont qualify.

1.Okay, I accept your point about choosing women who are midplaced for the Olympiad squad. fair point

2.No you are wrong. A female with an ACF in their 1600s qualified for the Champs this year. I will be expecting an apology from you, admitting that you were wrong :P :P

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:05 PM
2.No you are wrong. A female with an ACF in their 1600s qualified for the Champs this year. I will be expecting an apology from you, admitting that you were wrong :P :P
Nice try but wrong,
Therefore no apology from me because she didnt get in based on her rating. She got in as the previous Aus Womens Champ.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 07:09 PM
But this is a chicken and egg arguement. If you state that the Aust Champs will be used for 2 of the 4 women's Olympiad squad you will have more women entering and playing - including the top ones. As it is, it is better for the higher ranked women to not play, as a disasterous Champs may have adverse consequences for selection.
Understand this.
Very few women would get into the Aus Champs based on rating.

Also the final placing in a swiss for anything other than the first couple of places are just a lottery. Using it to determine Olympiad places for Women is just plain stupid.

An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.

As previously noted, the Women's Champ is run as part of the Aust Open, not the Aust Champ. Under the current strawman proposal, it would be the top two Women from this event, 1 woman chosen by a selection panel and the next top rated (PMR) woman who would be invited to compete in the Olympiad.

Of course, there is no reason why the women and open selection mechanisms need to this similar. But it could be a useful starting point for debate.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:14 PM
An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.

As previously noted, the Women's Champ is run as part of the Aust Open, not the Aust Champ. Under the current strawman proposal, it would be the top two Women from this event, 1 woman chosen by a selection panel and the next top rated (PMR) woman who would be invited to compete in the Olympiad.

Of course, there is no reason why the women and open selection mechanisms need to this similar. But it could be a useful starting point for debate.

I agree with your strawman proposal for men, but with one change;

3 from Aust champs
1 from ratings
1 from grand prix
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

For women;
2 from Women's champ
1 from rating
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:14 PM
An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.

As previously noted, the Women's Champ is run as part of the Aust Open, not the Aust Champ. Under the current strawman proposal, it would be the top two Women from this event, 1 woman chosen by a selection panel and the next top rated (PMR) woman who would be invited to compete in the Olympiad.

Of course, there is no reason why the women and open selection mechanisms need to this similar. But it could be a useful starting point for debate.

I agree with your strawman proposal for men, but with one change;

3 from Aust champs
1 from ratings
1 from grand prix
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

For women;
2 from Women's champ
1 from rating
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:15 PM
An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.
This is irrelevant to what I was discussing. I was referring to CL's comment about women.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 07:16 PM
Under Barry's proposal Ian would not need to play the Championship at all, since he would be assured of one of the two spots on ratings. Obviously whether he played or not would have an impact on which of the players below him were able to qualify by rating, and which required qualification by tournament.

As the RD are not published I might not be able to tell that for sure, but I would indeed be very surprised if that was not the case. Hopefully, Ian would be sufficiently motivated to competing in the Championships in their own right, however this is primarily a challenge for the organisers.

Of course if Rogers didn't play this would open up one more spot on the olympiad team for qualifer from the Championship. :D

chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:26 PM
2.No you are wrong. A female with an ACF in their 1600s qualified for the Champs this year. I will be expecting an apology from you, admitting that you were wrong :P :P
Nice try but wrong,
Therefore no apology from me because she didnt get in based on her rating. She got in as the previous Aus Womens Champ.

very well parried indeed =D>

chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:33 PM
I agree with your strawman proposal for men, but with one change;

3 from Aust champs
1 from ratings
1 from grand prix
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

For women;
2 from Women's champ
1 from rating
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

Why would you say that?

As the subjective element in selection is now reduced to just 1 for the Open team, and 1 for the women's team, it would be less not more chances of appeal? :?

Let us say for example like this year, Wohl did not make the top 3 of the Aust Champs, is not the highest rated player or won the grand prix. In my mind he would be a certainity to be in the Olympiad team based on his rating, overseas experience and past Olympiad experience.

Thus Gluzman vs Wohl appeal (for example) would be more difficult to win than Gluzman vs Speck, or Gluzman vs Wallace. The person the panel would select would be easier, and with less controversey, as it is the best person remaining after teh automatic qualifiers - not like picking numbers 4-6, where the subjective element is greater, and hence disputes and appeals

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:37 PM
I agree with your strawman proposal for men, but with one change;

3 from Aust champs
1 from ratings
1 from grand prix
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

For women;
2 from Women's champ
1 from rating
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

Why would you say that?
Why because its obvious.
There would be more people competing for that one selection position.


Let us say for example like this year, Wohl did not make the top 3 of the Aust Champs, is not the highest rated player or won the grand prix. In my mind he would be a certainity to be in the Olympiad team based on his rating, overseas experience and past Olympiad experience.

Thus Gluzman vs Wohl appeal (for example) would be more difficult to win than Gluzman vs Speck, or Gluzman vs Wallace. The person the panel would select would be easier, and with less controversey, as it is the best person remaining after teh automatic qualifiers - not like picking numbers 4-6, where the subjective element is greater, and hence disputes and appeals
I'm not prepred to concede that your reasoning is valid. ;)

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 07:53 PM
Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

I'm not convinced. My argument is that appeals are generated by the expectations of prospective reps not being met. If the expectation is that the teams is primarily made up of qualifiers based on performance at the champs and ratings, the last spot is really at the discretion of the selection panel. Anyone who felt they deserved a spot on the team should have been able to make their case via the other two routes.

Personally, I feel we could dispense with an appeals process for the one remaining panel selection.

BTW I don't like the idea of including a qualifier from the GP. This has the tendency to favour certain geographical areas since (unlike the Aust Champ) the GP events are generally held in the same places each year.

Also most GP events are much faster time limit than that played at the champ and olympiad so it is not comparing like abilities. This may be a loss to the GP but I think it would be detrimental to the goal of improving olympiad results.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:58 PM
Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

I'm not convinced. My argument is that appeals are generated by the expectations of prospective reps not being met. If the expectation is that the teams is primarily made up of qualifiers based on performance at the champs and ratings, the last spot is really at the discretion of the selection panel. Anyone who felt they deserved a spot on the team should have been able to make their case via the other two routes.
I'm not convinced. :D


BTW I don't like the idea of including a qualifier from the GP. This has the tendency to favour certain geographical areas since (unlike the Aust Champ) the GP events are generally held in the same places each year.

Also most GP events are much faster time limit than that played at the champ and olympiad so it is not comparing like abilities. This may be a loss to the GP but I think it would be detrimental to the goal of improving olympiad results.
On this we agree.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 07:58 PM
An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.

As previously noted, the Women's Champ is run as part of the Aust Open, not the Aust Champ. Under the current strawman proposal, it would be the top two Women from this event, 1 woman chosen by a selection panel and the next top rated (PMR) woman who would be invited to compete in the Olympiad.

Of course, there is no reason why the women and open selection mechanisms need to this similar. But it could be a useful starting point for debate.

I agree with your strawman proposal for men, but with one change;

3 from Aust champs
1 from ratings
1 from grand prix
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

For women;
2 from Women's champ
1 from rating
1 from selection panel (with appeal rights :P )

See my previous post why I think the GP qualifier spot is not a good idea.

I think the appeals process could be dispensed with for one spot. This should be considered the absolute discretion of the selection panel and correspondence not entered into. :shock:

BTW It's the Open, not the Mens.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 08:03 PM
Personally I could see this proposal being totally counter-productive and generating more appeals not less as their is only one spot up for grabs via selection.

I'm not convinced. My argument is that appeals are generated by the expectations of prospective reps not being met. If the expectation is that the teams is primarily made up of qualifiers based on performance at the champs and ratings, the last spot is really at the discretion of the selection panel. Anyone who felt they deserved a spot on the team should have been able to make their case via the other two routes.
I'm not convinced. :D

And your argument would be, people are argumentative.

Really I think with 5/6 spots determined from transparent objective processes the ACF selection panel should be allowed one absolutely discretionary selection.

I think it is a question of expectation management. Set this expectation, (of which removing the appeals process would be a part) and people will accept it. It could be pointed out to any prospective plaintiff that all they needed to do was finish in the top 3 at the Aust Open or being on the top of the ratings list to ensure a spot.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 08:15 PM
I think it is a question of expectation management. Set this expectation, (of which removing the appeals process would be a part) and people will accept it. It could be pointed out to any prospective plaintiff that all they needed to do was finish in the top 3 at the Aust Open or being on the top of the ratings list to ensure a spot.
Of course on that basis you could argue that prior to the Depas case no one had appealed about selections. They accpeted it.
Therefore the criteria in use up until the Depas case was fine. ;)

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 08:17 PM
For a bit of fun the team my current strawman would select is as follows...

Gary Lane (Aust Champ)
Ian Rogers (2nd place Champ)
Mark Chapman (3rd place Chap)
Darryl Johanssen (1st rating qualifier)
John-Paul Wallace (2nd rating qualifier)

One discretionary selection...

There would be a number to consider, amongst them probably

Speck, Wohl, Solomon, Tao, Smerdon, Sandler and Froehlich.

Be interesting to see how close this year's panel selected team is to this.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 08:22 PM
I think it is a question of expectation management. Set this expectation, (of which removing the appeals process would be a part) and people will accept it. It could be pointed out to any prospective plaintiff that all they needed to do was finish in the top 3 at the Aust Open or being on the top of the ratings list to ensure a spot.
Of course on that basis you could argue that prior to the Depas case no one had appealed about selections. They accpeted it.
Therefore the criteria in use up until the Depas case was fine. ;)

Given the increasingly litigious society we find ourselves in, it was only a matter of time before someone did. Someone could well dispute a single selection too, but I think there is less chance with one discretionary spot than with six.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 09:24 PM
Given the increasingly litigious society we find ourselves in, it was only a matter of time before someone did. Someone could well dispute a single selection too, but I think there is less chance with one discretionary spot than with six.


I agree. I think that having one discretionery selection, as opposed to 6 will reduce the chance of appeals significantly, or more importently the success of the appeal

Going by your strawman proposal, and accepting your grandprix reservations, it would be Lane, Rogers, Chapman, Johansen and Wallace, with the selectors probably chooing Wohl for the one discretionery position

Under this method, it is objective in that 5 of the 6 positions will be determined with prior stated procedures which are fair.

Anyone who misses out can only appeal against Wohl, which will be harder to succeed.

Last Olympiad for the Open team, you pretty much had this same team, with Speck chosen instead of Chapman (under this method)

I think this is a good way to select the future Olympiad squads :idea: =D>

chesslover
24-01-2004, 09:28 PM
BTW I don't like the idea of including a qualifier from the GP. This has the tendency to favour certain geographical areas since (unlike the Aust Champ) the GP events are generally held in the same places each year.

Also most GP events are much faster time limit than that played at the champ and olympiad so it is not comparing like abilities. This may be a loss to the GP but I think it would be detrimental to the goal of improving olympiad results.

Okay I accept the point that you, Bill, Ian Rout, jase etc have all made about the grand prix.

However I do think there should be some sort of connection to the grand prix and national selection - maybe as kevin suggested elsewhere in this thread, giving the top 3 grand prix points scorers automatic entry to the Aust Champs? :idea:

Garvinator
24-01-2004, 11:02 PM
However I do think there should be some sort of connection to the grand prix and national selection - maybe as kevin suggested elsewhere in this thread, giving the top 3 grand prix points scorers automatic entry to the Aust Champs? :idea:

in relation to grand prix qualification, how about making it a situation where say there are ten grand prix events during the year. Six of these are held in the capital cities including perth. Then the acf appoints where the other 4(in my example) are to be held.

This system could help to overcome some of the geographical bias that currently exists.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 11:16 PM
BTW I don't like the idea of including a qualifier from the GP. This has the tendency to favour certain geographical areas since (unlike the Aust Champ) the GP events are generally held in the same places each year.

Also most GP events are much faster time limit than that played at the champ and olympiad so it is not comparing like abilities. This may be a loss to the GP but I think it would be detrimental to the goal of improving olympiad results.

Okay I accept the point that you, Bill, Ian Rout, jase etc have all made about the grand prix.

However I do think there should be some sort of connection to the grand prix and national selection - maybe as kevin suggested elsewhere in this thread, giving the top 3 grand prix points scorers automatic entry to the Aust Champs? :idea:

I think that is worth considering. It would be interesting to see how much that would havemade a difference over the years. (Would the top 3 already have entry in the Champ).

The only problem though is that the GP is annual and the Champs biannual. Therefore there is the theoretical possibility of 6 qualifiers coming through from the GP. Not sure if the consequences of this would be devastating even if it did eventuate.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 11:23 PM
in relation to grand prix qualification, how about making it a situation where say there are ten grand prix events during the year. Six of these are held in the capital cities including perth. Then the acf appoints where the other 4(in my example) are to be held.

This system could help to overcome some of the geographical bias that currently exists.

Yes but it sounds like a administrative headache waiting to happen. If events were already established which would lend itself to this format then well and good. This would take some doing though. Even if they were, if one fell through then the problems of geographic bias would be raised.

Also you still have the problem of faster time limits and compressed schedules generally used in GP events selecting the wrong players for the olympiad format and time control.

Better I think if you want to support the GP and provide a path to the Olympiad as incentive, then do it via Aust Champ qualification. Then the GP qualifiers can prove themselves at the slower time limit against first class opposition.

Rincewind
24-01-2004, 11:59 PM
An 11 round swiss with a field around 30 should give a reasonably good result for the top 3 spots.
This is irrelevant to what I was discussing. I was referring to CL's comment about women.

Yes, just clarifying. w.r.t Women you should have been discussing the Open, not the Closed Champ and it is only the first two placed women that matter for selection purposes.

The women team by this method would be

Slavica Sarai (Aust Women's Champ)
Nancy Lane (2nd place Aust Women's Champ)
Irina Berezina-Feldman (Rated Qualifier)

+ 1 panel selected player. Perhaps Sorokina, Eriksson, Nguyen or Dekic.

Nancy might be a surprise inclusion but this because many of the top women did not contest the Open. Had Olympiad places been on offer this might have been different. Then again perhaps this model does work as well for the women.

The other problem with the women model is the Open is a good 12-18 months before the Olympiad so it is no well timed for selection based no form. Perhaps what is needed is a selection tournament or a Women's Closed Championship at a similar time as the Closed Champ.

To not suffer the same wrath as the last person who suggested this, let me say that "No, I don't pretend to know 1/100th as much about women's chess as Evelyn Koshnitsky". ;)

Garvinator
25-01-2004, 12:07 AM
[To not suffer the same wrath as the last person who suggested this, let me say that "No, I don't pretend to know 1/100th as much about women's chess as Evelyn Koshnitsky". ;)

hmm the person who suggested a separate championship- that comment sounds familiar, must be from a very smart and quick witted person ;)

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2004, 12:34 AM
If saying the top 3 earn a spot in the team is a non-event then we shouldn't have an issue changing the selection model. :D Most of the time you are right but the certainty this would give competiters in the championship would do a lot in the motivation stakes.

But unless the person potentially in place 7 (if there were 7 places) is close enough to the person in place 3 as to give the person in place 3 a chance of not being selected then the person in place 3 is as much of a shoe-in under the selection model as they are under the qualification model, so there is no need to change the system. And if things are close between number 3 and number 7 then selection is more likely to pick the stronger player than a single tournament anyway.


I don't think making the top 3 qualify for a spot in the olympiad should affect the appearance money. Performance in the Aust Champ are already a major decider in team selection so why should going from a subjective selection model to a transparent objective one change that?

No, your top 3 system probably wouldn't, although this now means that unless the organisers pay appearance money to #1 the Aus Champs may end up being a selector for positions 2-4, with the #1 player taking advantage of the other mechanisms - is this what you want?

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2004, 12:51 AM
Anyone who misses out can only appeal against Wohl, which will be harder to succeed.

Your reasoning contains a faulty premise, which is that if A is perceived to be much stronger than B, then an appeal against A is more likely to fail than if A is perceived to be only marginally stronger or as strong.

Actually an appeal based on the selectors' rankings rather than a technicality can only succeed if the appeal panel holds that the rankings of the selectors was clearly incorrect.

This can only be the case if A is much weaker than B.

As such whether A is marginally stronger, much stronger or around the same strength is irrelevant to the question of whether B's appeal has chances of success.

Brian_Jones
25-01-2004, 10:30 AM
Evelyn only suggested incorporating the Womens Championship into the Australian Open because the old Womens Championship (held alongside the Australian Championship at the beginning of an Olympiad year) was struggling for numbers.

Now if you tie Olympiad selection places to the Womens Championship then the problem will be solved - the Women will come out to play again!

In my view, we should not reward players for inactivity. If you do not play then you should not get selected and your rating should decrease (by erosion - less reliable).

I agree with the main conclusions being drawn in this thread, that is automatic selections from the Championships. But if we are going to use rating to decide additional places, then we should eliminate all rated games played at time limits other than 90 plus 30secs fischer (as used in the Olympiad).

chesslover
25-01-2004, 04:19 PM
Now if you tie Olympiad selection places to the Womens Championship then the problem will be solved - the Women will come out to play again!

In my view, we should not reward players for inactivity. If you do not play then you should not get selected and your rating should decrease (by erosion - less reliable).

I agree with the main conclusions being drawn in this thread, that is automatic selections from the Championships. But if we are going to use rating to decide additional places, then we should eliminate all rated games played at time limits other than 90 plus 30secs fischer (as used in the Olympiad).

Agree with your points above. Yes, if you tie half the Olympiad selections to the WOmens Champ, then more women will come out to play.

Also agree with your point about not rewarding inactivity

But there may be problems about elmininating ratings for games that are not using the Olympiad time control. That would mean that there are 2 ACF "classical" ratings

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 04:21 PM
But there may be problems about elmininating ratings for games that are not using the Olympiad time control. That would mean that there are 2 ACF "classical" ratings
You can forget that. It isn't going to happen.

Garvinator
25-01-2004, 05:41 PM
I agree with the main conclusions being drawn in this thread, that is automatic selections from the Championships. But if we are going to use rating to decide additional places, then we should eliminate all rated games played at time limits other than 90 plus 30secs fischer (as used in the Olympiad).

even though the idea of eliminating games of less than 90/30 from olympiad rating calculations sound a good idea in theory, it would be impractical in reality as it would force tournaments to be played at 90/30 in the olympiad years.

As from the australia day weekender thread, having the 90/30 timer has caused much debate and would not be a practical timer for most tournaments.

Rincewind
25-01-2004, 07:27 PM
Evelyn only suggested incorporating the Womens Championship into the Australian Open because the old Womens Championship (held alongside the Australian Championship at the beginning of an Olympiad year) was struggling for numbers.

Now if you tie Olympiad selection places to the Womens Championship then the problem will be solved - the Women will come out to play again!

That should be a good thing, yes. If that doesn't happen then perhaps we should select the women's team with the Current Champion, 2 rating based places and 1 panel selection. However, as previously pointed out, many of the to women do not have reliable ratings due to inactivity.


In my view, we should not reward players for inactivity. If you do not play then you should not get selected and your rating should decrease (by erosion - less reliable).

Using the probably minumum ratnig (PMR) as previously described will effectively do this. The rating will not change but due to the increased RD the Rating -RD will effectively erode.


I agree with the main conclusions being drawn in this thread, that is automatic selections from the Championships. But if we are going to use rating to decide additional places, then we should eliminate all rated games played at time limits other than 90 plus 30secs fischer (as used in the Olympiad).

I understand you argument and your point is valid. However I believe mitigating circumstances reduce the effectiveness of this line of argument when you are talking about rating based entry.

The rating based qualifiers will always be players of the highest calibre so while you might not select the absolutely best team of players at 7 hour chess you will still get a quality pick. The problem is that there is not much chess being played at this longer time limit and any such ratings will never be very reliable.

Personally I think G60 is too fast to be considered classical chess (I think it should be G120 at a minimum) but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. PS I also don't like playing more than one game a day, which is why you don't see my name in many weekender crosstables. ;)

chesslover
25-01-2004, 09:09 PM
Personally I think G60 is too fast to be considered classical chess (I think it should be G120 at a minimum) but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

But surely we have to decide what is offically "rapid" chess and what is "classical" chess based on what FIDE says - now what ypou state, or I state or what Brian states or even what the Supreme Leader states or even what the ACF states?

As G60 is not rapid, it is classical, and should be rated as such

chesslover
25-01-2004, 09:20 PM
Over the last 10 years it has shifted from Australia doing better to Canada doing better.

Bled 2002, Canada 33rd, Australia 53rd
Istanbul 2000, Canada 29th, Australia 36th
Elista 1998, Canada 42nd, Australia 63rd
Yerevan 1996, Australia 28th, Canada 29th
Moscow 1994, Australia 42nd, Canada 65th
Manila 1992, Australia 46th, Canada 54th

Not suggesting that any of this is because of their selection mechanisms but there is certainly no evidence to think our are obviously better. The main reason though is because CL asked.

This is the top 20 Australian players by FIDE ranking, and the top 20 canadian players by FIDE ranking. Canada is probably the country closest to us in terms of geographical size, the sparse number of people, a non chess culture so it is interesting to compare both..

It shows name, title, FIDE rating, games played during rated period and DOB

AUSTRALIA
1 Rogers, Ian g AUS 2582 12 1960-06-24
2 Johansen, Darryl K. g AUS 2519 13 1959-02-04
3 Lane, Gary W. m AUS 2423 16 1964-11-04
4 Smerdon, David m AUS 2418 20 1984-09-17
5 Wallace, John Paul m AUS 2410 0 1976-11-19
6 Gluzman, Mikhail m AUS 2403 0 1967-09-05
7 Zhao, Zong-Yuan m AUS 2398 0 1986-06-26
7 Wohl, Aleksandar H. m AUS 2398 24 1963-07-21
9 Solomon, Stephen J. m AUS 2397 12 1963-07-24
10 Sandler, Leonid m AUS 2390 10 1962-01-01
11 Speck, Nick AUS 2381 3 1973-04-03
12 Depasquale, Chris f AUS 2354 10 1961-08-02
13 West, Guy m AUS 2352 5 1958-09-07
14 Chapman, Mark m AUS 2349 0 1963-10-24
15 Jordan, William f AUS 2333 0 1957-06-14
16 Feldman, Vladimir m AUS 2322 0
17 Stephens, Malcolm f AUS 2312 0
18 Canfell, Gregory f AUS 2310 7 1970-12-21
19 Curtis, John f AUS 2305 0 1952-09-20
20 Baron, Michael f AUS 2303 0


CANADA

1 Spraggett, Kevin g CAN 2536 6 1954-11-10
2 Lesiege, Alexandre g CAN 2513 0 1975-08-18
3 Tyomkin, Dimitri g CAN 2503 28 1977-03-25
4 Charbonneau, Pascal m CAN 2485 0 1983-05-06
5 Zugic, Igor m CAN 2478 0 1981-12-23
6 Bluvshtein, Mark m CAN 2453 13 1988-04-20
7 Teplitsky, Yan m CAN 2440 12 1975-12-19
8 Roussel-Roozmon, Thomas f CAN 2434 29 1988-01-08
9 Linskiy, Oleg M. f CAN 2424 0 1972-09-20
10 Hebert, Jean m CAN 2412 0 1957-11-11
11 Nickoloff, Bryon m CAN 2405 6 1956-06-23
12 Barbeau, Sylvain f CAN 2404 0 1961-05-12
13 Hergott, Deen m CAN 2385 0 1962-10-23
14 Yoos, John C. f CAN 2383 20 1969-07-10
15 O'Donnell, Tom m CAN 2367 0 1965-01-20
16 Cummings, David H. m CAN 2362 0 1961-01-24
17 Quan, Zhe f CAN 2355 7 1990-01-23
17 Livshits, Ron m CAN 2355 13 1973-07-02
19 Hamilton, Robert f CAN 2349 0 1961-09-26
19 Glinert, Stephen m CAN 2349 0 1984-08-27


Australia has 2 GM's and 11 IM's in it's top 20 list. Our highest FIDE rating is 2582, with the top 10 cutoff 2390 and the top 20 cutoff 2303

Canada has 3 GMs and 11 IMs in their top 20 list. Their highest FIDE rating is 2536, and the top 10 cutoff 2412 and the top 20 cutoff 2349

jase
27-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Thanks for listing those Australia v Canada rating statistics Chesslover.

I think they clearly demonstrate that Canada is now a stronger nation and Olympiad team than Australia. Whilst Canada beat us by 20 places in Bled, we were only 1.5 points behind. Places are very bunched in the middle of the field, and one blunder by a player in the final round is worth 10 places [which is not to offer excuses for the Australian Open team's performance, it really wasn't very good].

Whilst there is little difference in each nation's number of titled players, I think at least 4 have been earnt by scoring 6/9 at Zonals. The Canadian IMs seem, to me, clearly the stronger, most likely because they were earnt the traditional way by players capable of regularly performing at 2450 against strong company.

Our isolation [the top Canadian players have a top 10 nation just over the border to compete with] also means that our top players rarely get strong competition - they have to go to Europe for that.

We are also far worse off in regards to funding - we always have players drop from the team

---------------------------

On a slightly philisophical plane, the principal reason I support the current selection system is that I believe in the powers of human judgement.
I believe a team of selectors make far better decisions on who Australia's best players are than [any] one tournament can.
I believe that the flexibility of the human mind takes into account many factors important to the merits of applicants.
I believe that creating a system to remove debate defies logic. We're trying to select the best team, not quell debate.


---------------------------

I am currently putting together a proposal for another international tournament. Given that there will be international players competing, who are all rated over 2400, this could be very important for players vying for Olympiad selection. When these tournaments take place, like the last one in 1999, those who think we should select on Australian Championships performance therefore want to EXCLUDE performances in such events.

They want to REJECT a 2500 performance in a classical time control against foreign players because it wasn't in the ONE tournament you're using for selection. Conversely, they ignore a 2200 performance because there's only one tournament at which performance will be considered.

"Oh, but these tournaments are quite rare". Yes, they are. And the event I am currently working on may not eventuate. But we should strive to make them more common. We should strive to make events like the Australian Masters a stronger, more prestigious event [as we should the Australian Championships]. Who takes account of such things? SELECTORS.

Selectors understand the importance of the Austalian Championships. That's how Nick Speck got selected. It was controversial - that's OKAY! This absurd notion that having selectors for only 1 or 2 boards will remove controversy...where do you think all recent selection controversy has been? BOARD SIX.

Someone gave the example that Wohl v Gluzman would be a far less controversial dilemma. well to reply to that particular instance, That author should take a look at Alex's Olympiad record, and form over the past two years.

Rogers didn't win the Australian Championship, but our competent selectors will recognise that he is the best player to sit on Board 1. Lane struggled on Board 3 last time and hopefull he will do much better this year - but to put him on board 1 would not only draw mirth from the chess world, it probably looks like we're rigging our team - a practice condemned when the Indonesians put their 2200-strength sponsor on Board 1 in Bled.

Regarding the Women [and I include them for all of my points above, and feel dismay at their neglect in much of this threrad] again their is an excellent system to identify the team: SELECTORS. The "strawman" team for women is even worse than the Open team.

We're trying to find the team that will perform best at one event, but that is best achieved by selecting our strongest players. Not strongest players [i] at X event - just consider the difference between Gary Lane in Bled and Gary Lane in Adelaide - and it is clear how wide the variables in performance can be. Should we take account of these variables? Of course. And who will do this? Ummm...

peanbrain
27-01-2004, 02:27 PM
We're trying to find the team that will perform best at one event, but that is best achieved by selecting our strongest players. Not strongest players at X event - just consider the difference between Gary Lane in Bled and Gary Lane in Adelaide - and it is clear how wide the variables in performance can be. Should we take account of these variables? Of course. And who will do this? Ummm...

Good points jase!! Very sensible arguments.

What would your team list look like for both the open and women if you are a selector?

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 03:28 PM
Thanks for listing those Australia v Canada rating statistics Chesslover.

I think they clearly demonstrate that Canada is now a stronger nation and Olympiad team than Australia. Whilst Canada beat us by 20 places in Bled, we were only 1.5 points behind. Places are very bunched in the middle of the field, and one blunder by a player in the final round is worth 10 places [which is not to offer excuses for the Australian Open team's performance, it really wasn't very good].

Whilst there is little difference in each nation's number of titled players, I think at least 4 have been earnt by scoring 6/9 at Zonals. The Canadian IMs seem, to me, clearly the stronger, most likely because they were earnt the traditional way by players capable of regularly performing at 2450 against strong company.

Our isolation [the top Canadian players have a top 10 nation just over the border to compete with] also means that our top players rarely get strong competition - they have to go to Europe for that.

We are also far worse off in regards to funding - we always have players drop from the team

---------------------------

On a slightly philisophical plane, the principal reason I support the current selection system is that I believe in the powers of human judgement.
I believe a team of selectors make far better decisions on who Australia's best players are than [any] one tournament can.
I believe that the flexibility of the human mind takes into account many factors important to the merits of applicants.
I believe that creating a system to remove debate defies logic. We're trying to select the best team, not quell debate.


---------------------------

I am currently putting together a proposal for another international tournament. Given that there will be international players competing, who are all rated over 2400, this could be very important for players vying for Olympiad selection. When these tournaments take place, like the last one in 1999, those who think we should select on Australian Championships performance therefore want to EXCLUDE performances in such events.

They want to REJECT a 2500 performance in a classical time control against foreign players because it wasn't in the ONE tournament you're using for selection. Conversely, they ignore a 2200 performance because there's only one tournament at which performance will be considered.

"Oh, but these tournaments are quite rare". Yes, they are. And the event I am currently working on may not eventuate. But we should strive to make them more common. We should strive to make events like the Australian Masters a stronger, more prestigious event [as we should the Australian Championships]. Who takes account of such things? SELECTORS.

Selectors understand the importance of the Austalian Championships. That's how Nick Speck got selected. It was controversial - that's OKAY! This absurd notion that having selectors for only 1 or 2 boards will remove controversy...where do you think all recent selection controversy has been? BOARD SIX.

Someone gave the example that Wohl v Gluzman would be a far less controversial dilemma. well to reply to that particular instance, That author should take a look at Alex's Olympiad record, and form over the past two years.

Rogers didn't win the Australian Championship, but our competent selectors will recognise that he is the best player to sit on Board 1. Lane struggled on Board 3 last time and hopefull he will do much better this year - but to put him on board 1 would not only draw mirth from the chess world, it probably looks like we're rigging our team - a practice condemned when the Indonesians put their 2200-strength sponsor on Board 1 in Bled.

Regarding the Women [and I include them for all of my points above, and feel dismay at their neglect in much of this threrad] again their is an excellent system to identify the team: SELECTORS. The "strawman" team for women is even worse than the Open team.

We're trying to find the team that will perform best at one event, but that is best achieved by selecting our strongest players. Not strongest players [i] at X event - just consider the difference between Gary Lane in Bled and Gary Lane in Adelaide - and it is clear how wide the variables in performance can be. Should we take account of these variables? Of course. And who will do this? Ummm...

Excellent post.
Well done jase.

Rincewind
27-01-2004, 03:33 PM
On a slightly philisophical plane, the principal reason I support the current selection system is that I believe in the powers of human judgement.
I believe a team of selectors make far better decisions on who Australia's best players are than [any] one tournament can.
I believe that the flexibility of the human mind takes into account many factors important to the merits of applicants.
I believe that creating a system to remove debate defies logic. We're trying to select the best team, not quell debate.

Removing controversy is just one aspect of an objective selection system. We are actually trying to improve our results at olympiads and ensuring we have stong players to pick from as well as selecting a strong team will do that.

Your argument is you believe a panel of selectors will pick a stronger team than any artifical method. By that argument you would also replace the rating system by a panel of handicappers who would assign ratings to all players. Due to labour constraints maybe just the players who they consider to be the top 20 players.

My argument is that an objective, fair and transparent system will encourage players to improve as they know with certainty what is required to earn Olympiad selection. Finish in the top 3 at the Aust Champ or at the top of the rating list. Not "attract the eye of selectors" which may discourage players from committing 100% effort to chess as there is no goal of which they can be certain.


I am currently putting together a proposal for another international tournament. Given that there will be international players competing, who are all rated over 2400, this could be very important for players vying for Olympiad selection. When these tournaments take place, like the last one in 1999, those who think we should select on Australian Championships performance therefore want to EXCLUDE performances in such events.

They want to REJECT a 2500 performance in a classical time control against foreign players because it wasn't in the ONE tournament you're using for selection. Conversely, they ignore a 2200 performance because there's only one tournament at which performance will be considered.

"Oh, but these tournaments are quite rare". Yes, they are. And the event I am currently working on may not eventuate. But we should strive to make them more common. We should strive to make events like the Australian Masters a stronger, more prestigious event [as we should the Australian Championships]. Who takes account of such things? SELECTORS.


Attracting players to your tournament is your issue. Selectors will still be able to use your tournament to determine the panel selected team member. The players already on the team will not be discouraged from playing as they already have their olympiad place.



Selectors understand the importance of the Austalian Championships. That's how Nick Speck got selected. It was controversial - that's OKAY! This absurd notion that having selectors for only 1 or 2 boards will remove controversy...where do you think all recent selection controversy has been? BOARD SIX.


The selectors' pick may not end up playing board six. In the strawman team you could well play the panel selected member higher up the ladder. The point is one of expectatoin management. I think we should engender the following culture:

If you want an olympiad spot you must finish in the top 3 at the champs or at the top of the rating list. The selectors pick one member and this is entirely discretionary without an appeals process.


Someone gave the example that Wohl v Gluzman would be a far less controversial dilemma. well to reply to that particular instance, That author should take a look at Alex's Olympiad record, and form over the past two years.

That was CL point - through to keeper. :)


Rogers didn't win the Australian Championship, but our competent selectors will recognise that he is the best player to sit on Board 1. Lane struggled on Board 3 last time and hopefull he will do much better this year - but to put him on board 1 would not only draw mirth from the chess world, it probably looks like we're rigging our team - a practice condemned when the Indonesians put their 2200-strength sponsor on Board 1 in Bled.

The method I describe was just to pick the team, not allocate boards. I believe board allocation is a team decision not the role of a selection panel.


Regarding the Women [and I include them for all of my points above, and feel dismay at their neglect in much of this threrad] again their is an excellent system to identify the team: SELECTORS. The "strawman" team for women is even worse than the Open team.


The "weakness" of the strawman women's team (and I mean no disrespect to Nancy) was a symptom of apathy in women's chess w.r.t contesting the Aust Women's Championship. Brian Jones believes that if two Olympiad places hinged on Aust W Champ positions a separate Aust W Champ could once again be held in it's own right and would be contested by strong players. I think he might be right.


We're trying to find the team that will perform best at one event, but that is best achieved by selecting our strongest players. Not strongest players at X event - just consider the difference between Gary Lane in Bled and Gary Lane in Adelaide - and it is clear how wide the variables in performance can be. Should we take account of these variables? Of course. And who will do this? Ummm...

The question is how do we know selectors will do this any better than the strawman method?

Is there any objective measurement of the selectors performance?

I've asked this question before and it has not been address by anyone as yet so I would say "no". Although I would happier if I was wrong.

It's fine to have FAITH in the selection process and selectors. But recognise that it is simply that, FAITH. Other countries use similar models to the one I've proposed as a strawman. Other individual sports use similar, or even more single-performance weighted system than that proposed.

Australia's results at Olympiad's over the last 10 years have been less encouraging than they might have been. Perhaps it is time to question our long held FAITH in the strength of the selection process.

Rincewind
27-01-2004, 03:38 PM
Excellent post.
Well done jase.

See rebuttal above.

Although was it really necessary to quote the entire post in your post?

What happened to the old "quote as much as you reply" rule of thumb?

;)

arosar
27-01-2004, 03:48 PM
This bloke Bazza's starting to sound convincing the more he harps on. That bit about faith just about nailed it. Still, I kinda favour a hybrid system: that is, panel based + qualification event. My main reason for saying this is that there will be a time when our GM's won't perform in one particular event. But you and I know that they have to be in the team. So I say, whack them in there - that's Ian and Dazza - and have the rest qualify. Is this fair enough?

AR

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 03:52 PM
See rebuttal above.

Although was it really necessary to quote the entire post in your post?

What happened to the old "quote as much as you reply" rule of thumb?

;)
I thought it was excellent and deserved repeating. ;)

chesslover
27-01-2004, 09:10 PM
Removing controversy is just one aspect of an objective selection system. We are actually trying to improve our results at olympiads and ensuring we have stong players to pick from as well as selecting a strong team will do that.

Your argument is you believe a panel of selectors will pick a stronger team than any artifical method. By that argument you would also replace the rating system by a panel of handicappers who would assign ratings to all players. Due to labour constraints maybe just the players who they consider to be the top 20 players.

My argument is that an objective, fair and transparent system will encourage players to improve as they know with certainty what is required to earn Olympiad selection. Finish in the top 3 at the Aust Champ or at the top of the rating list. Not "attract the eye of selectors" which may discourage players from committing 100% effort to chess as there is no goal of which they can be certain.

Attracting players to your tournament is your issue. Selectors will still be able to use your tournament to determine the panel selected team member. The players already on the team will not be discouraged from playing as they already have their olympiad place.

The selectors' pick may not end up playing board six. In the strawman team you could well play the panel selected member higher up the ladder. The point is one of expectatoin management. I think we should engender the following culture:

If you want an olympiad spot you must finish in the top 3 at the champs or at the top of the rating list. The selectors pick one member and this is entirely discretionary without an appeals process.

The method I describe was just to pick the team, not allocate boards. I believe board allocation is a team decision not the role of a selection panel.

The "weakness" of the strawman women's team (and I mean no disrespect to Nancy) was a symptom of apathy in women's chess w.r.t contesting the Aust Women's Championship. Brian Jones believes that if two Olympiad places hinged on Aust W Champ positions a separate Aust W Champ could once again be held in it's own right and would be contested by strong players. I think he might be right.

The question is how do we know selectors will do this any better than the strawman method?

Is there any objective measurement of the selectors performance?

I've asked this question before and it has not been address by anyone as yet so I would say "no". Although I would happier if I was wrong.

It's fine to have FAITH in the selection process and selectors. But recognise that it is simply that, FAITH. Other countries use similar models to the one I've proposed as a strawman. Other individual sports use similar, or even more single-performance weighted system than that proposed.

Australia's results at Olympiad's over the last 10 years have been less encouraging than they might have been. Perhaps it is time to question our long held FAITH in the strength of the selection process.

Excellent post. Your hybrid system of half by automatic qualifiers based on ACC, 2 by rating (1 for women) and 1 decided by the selection panel is very convincing.

If there was a BB prize, this post should be nominated...

well worth repeatimg..well done barry :)

peanbrain
27-01-2004, 09:34 PM
Excellent post. Your hybrid system of half by automatic qualifiers based on ACC, 2 by rating (1 for women) and 1 decided by the selection panel is very convincing.

If there was a BB prize, this post should be nominated...

well worth repeatimg..well done barry :)

Chesslover - How about something a bit more original than just simply following Bill's tactics?! :o

Keep on repeating your views over and over without anything new is not going to brainwash anyone, however successful Mr Bush was with it.

jase
28-01-2004, 12:01 AM
Barry - my comment regarding my dismay at the neglect of the Women's team in this thread is particularly directed at your posts.Since you continually point to poor results by the Australian team, and referred to the selection methods as a cause, let me contradict you emphatically:

I am extremely proud of the performance of the Women's team at the two Olympiads at which I have been involved [which is not to discount any previous performances]. An individual silver medal, competing well against top 10 countries, performing well above our station [and of course outperforming the men]. I think 3 of the 4 players in Istanbul performed above their rating; I think all 4 did in Bled . I reject your assessment that our results have been "less encouraging".

On the subject of my own event, Barry, you seem to have entirely missed the point. It seems clear to me, going over my post, that the point I make is that where title tournaments exist in Australia, your system almost universally ignores these events. Your reply to this point is:

"Attracting players to your tournament is your issue. Selectors will still be able to use your tournament to determine the panel selected team member."

Such events are significant indicators of playing strength and form for all players, and are taken into account by selectors. You could address the point. You could conceed the point. You instead chose to cop out and play the man.

You draw the false analogy that I would remove the rating system. Aside from a lack of scruples it is difficult to understand how you draw this conclusion. The rating system is a useful guide for selectors. It measures performance. They use it. Extensively. I drew the conclusion that a system relying on performances is one event would be a system which has less need for ratings. If any player gets a good run, nails an IM in the last round and lands a high placing, he's in your team. Justin Tan is a case in point from the most recent Championships.

You want the order of boards to be decided by "team decision". What? You want them all to send in their emails and nominate where they want to play? Or you want SELECTORS for this?! :eek:

Measurement of the performance of selectors, as I've written before, is through
1. Performance: how the team performed. In recent times the Men's team has performed either to or below expectations; the women's team has performed to or exceeded expectations.
2. Consensus: the community's view of the selections. In the last decade there has been perhaps one selection [in my opinion] which the chess community had strong doubts over - Nick Speck. It was a selection that had people divided down the middle. I would have to go back to Trevor Tao in about 1994 to think of another selection that any more than about 5% of the chess community thought was a questionable selection [happy to stand corrected on controversy I've overlooked].

It is not "simply FAITH" upon which we rely on selectors. Other sports use selectors just as chess does. One key criteria from chess selectors is rating, and rating performance over recent periods. But we don't use that as an absolute, just as we do not, and should not, use one tournament as an absolute.

Using one tournament is entirely [i]unfair. It is extremely biased to measure one result and ignore all others. It creates a system that will discourage the top players from competition, in a climate when they perhaps play too little already [understandable, given financial constraints].

Which players are "discouraged" from "100% commitment to chess" by the current system? Clearly they'll be far less committed if there's only a need to protect a healthy rating and/or do well in one tournament per two years. Jammo will be pleased to know he's in your team.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 01:17 AM
Barry - my comment regarding my dismay at the neglect of the Women's team in this thread is particularly directed at your posts.Since you continually point to poor results by the Australian team, and referred to the selection methods as a cause, let me contradict you emphatically:

I am extremely proud of the performance of the Women's team at the two Olympiads at which I have been involved [which is not to discount any previous performances]. An individual silver medal, competing well against top 10 countries, performing well above our station [and of course outperforming the men]. I think 3 of the 4 players in Istanbul performed above their rating; I think all 4 did in Bled . I reject your assessment that our results have been "less encouraging".

I'm on record several times as saying that I don't know much about Women's chess. Probably because there are so few of them playing (and myself not mixing in very wise circles). The only "woman" I can remember EVER playing is Vaness who is a local junior and a promising player.

I also freely admit that what works for the open doesn't necessarily work for the Women's. As I said Brian seems to think a Women's Championship might work and might be a good thing in its own right.


On the subject of my own event, Barry, you seem to have entirely missed the point. It seems clear to me, going over my post, that the point I make is that where title tournaments exist in Australia, your system almost universally ignores these events. Your reply to this point is:

"Attracting players to your tournament is your issue. Selectors will still be able to use your tournament to determine the panel selected team member."

Title tournament affect ratings and will be considered by the selection panel in their deliberations.


Such events are significant indicators of playing strength and form for all players, and are taken into account by selectors. You could address the point. You could conceed the point. You instead chose to cop out and play the man.

I addressed both points you made and repeat that performance at title tournaments will be considered by selectors in their decision.


You draw the false analogy that I would remove the rating system. Aside from a lack of scruples it is difficult to understand how you draw this conclusion. The rating system is a useful guide for selectors. It measures performance. They use it. Extensively. I drew the conclusion that a system relying on performances is one event would be a system which has less need for ratings. If any player gets a good run, nails an IM in the last round and lands a high placing, he's in your team. Justin Tan is a case in point from the most recent Championships.

Who is playnig the man now?

You said you have a philosophical position that the human decision making process was necessary to determine who should be on the Olympiad team. As this basically consists of picking the player who will perform best under the specific conditions of a particular tournament several month ahead of time, the ratins system which effectively attempts to predict performance ni the next 3 months of chess play should also be best done by humans than some statistical algorithm.


You want the order of boards to be decided by "team decision". What? You want them all to send in their emails and nominate where they want to play? Or you want SELECTORS for this?! :eek:

The team with final say by the captain should be able to determine playnig positions. If you want Selectors to do this, fine. It makes no difference to me. I don't thinkthis is a big deal, in fact, I don't think it is even a small deal.



Measurement of the performance of selectors, as I've written before, is through
1. Performance: how the team performed. In recent times the Men's team has performed either to or below expectations; the women's team has performed to or exceeded expectations.

Do we have set goals, do we measure them, do we correllate them to particular selectors?


2. Consensus: the community's view of the selections. In the last decade there has been perhaps one selection [in my opinion] which the chess community had strong doubts over - Nick Speck. It was a selection that had people divided down the middle. I would have to go back to Trevor Tao in about 1994 to think of another selection that any more than about 5% of the chess community thought was a questionable selection [happy to stand corrected on controversy I've overlooked].

So do you think that if you polled the entire chess community for their six players to send to the Olympiad over the last 10 years then (with the exception of 2002 and 1994) 95% of the resonses would be same as the team selected?


It is not "simply FAITH" upon which we rely on selectors. Other sports use selectors just as chess does. One key criteria from chess selectors is rating, and rating performance over recent periods. But we don't use that as an absolute, just as we do not, and should not, use one tournament as an absolute.

Can you name an individual sport that does?


Using one tournament is entirely [i]unfair. It is extremely biased to measure one result and ignore all others. It creates a system that will discourage the top players from competition, in a climate when they perhaps play too little already [understandable, given financial constraints].

It is not unfair if all players are able to play in the competition, those that are not are able to make the team by other methods.

The consideration of probable minimum rating will actually encourage players to play in ACF rated events.


Which players are "discouraged" from "100% commitment to chess" by the current system? Clearly they'll be far less committed if there's only a need to protect a healthy rating and/or do well in one tournament per two years. Jammo will be pleased to know he's in your team.

Healthy ratings will erode with time when probable minimum ratings are considered. More than one or two tourmaments will be needed to maintain a low RD.

Jammo didn't make it on the team by my method. Although he does have a chance that the selectors will select him. But under your system he is six times MORE likely to make the team.

Ian Rout
28-01-2004, 07:48 AM
Having seen the course of this discussion it seems to have gone much as I said earlier - in proposing to move from a subjective to an objective system the discussion has simply replaced subjective selection of players with a subjective selection of the components, and their weighting, of the objective system, some of which are themselves subject to subjective considerations, (e.g. who selects the Elo/Glicko/other rating system?)

Incidentally since Barry is hanging a lot off his concept of probable minimum rating I should mention that there seems to me to be (subjectively) a flaw. I would have thought that a reasonably active player who has reached their level would have a fixed PMinR and PMaxR and simply move about within them over time. The proposed definition of PMinR fluctuates with rating.

I see Barry's thought that if the system were to break down completely, producing bizarre and obviously unreasonable selections, or it were impossible to get selectors, then we would reach a point where it would be better to just send the top placegetters from the Aust Championship or the top-rated players. It's a perfectly valid last resort.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 08:29 AM
Having seen the course of this discussion it seems to have gone much as I said earlier - in proposing to move from a subjective to an objective system the discussion has simply replaced subjective selection of players with a subjective selection of the components, and their weighting, of the objective system, some of which are themselves subject to subjective considerations, (e.g. who selects the Elo/Glicko/other rating system?)

My impression is that very little of the discussion is regarding this point. The majority of the disagreement regarding rating seems to be a feeling that players will not play to preserve their high ratings.

Ratings don't predict future performance to a degree of 100%, if they did it would bring into question of free-will and predestination, however they are the best system we have and almost universally favoured over human guestimates. Why should olympiad selection be seen as the exception rather than the rule?


Incidentally since Barry is hanging a lot off his concept of probable minimum rating I should mention that there seems to me to be (subjectively) a flaw. I would have thought that a reasonably active player who has reached their level would have a fixed PMinR and PMaxR and simply move about within them over time. The proposed definition of PMinR fluctuates with rating.

Players strength/form fluctuation as is evidenced by the rating movement. The problem is how does anyone know what is a downward fluctuation and what is the beginning of a downward trend?

I reject the idea of fiddling the system by producing a fixed PMinR without justification for doing so. In fact any system which looks to dampen fluctuation would seem to be discouraging to players who am improving to qualify for the team. So on that basis I think any dampening would make the system worse, not better.


I see Barry's thought that if the system were to break down completely, producing bizarre and obviously unreasonable selections, or it were impossible to get selectors, then we would reach a point where it would be better to just send the top placegetters from the Aust Championship or the top-rated players. It's a perfectly valid last resort.

My question is why wouldn't the strawman mechanism not be better than the current subjective system we have today?

Would having and objective, transparent selection mechanism have other benefits? (Provide motivation to produce stronger players, reduce selection appeal wrangles, etc).

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 09:27 AM
Can you name an individual sport that does?


how about presidents cup and ryder cup golf?

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 10:57 AM
how about presidents cup and ryder cup golf?

Do they have golf at the olympics?