PDA

View Full Version : 2005 ACT Championship



Ian Rout
10-07-2005, 05:01 PM
Scores and games of the 2005 ACT Championship are at:

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/Championships/2005ACTChampionship.htm

Not much has happened yet.

Ian Rout
16-07-2005, 12:14 PM
Round 2 results are now up at the above address - games will be available in the next couple of days.

jenni
15-09-2005, 04:59 PM
With one round of the ACT Championships still to go, Michael Wei is unstoppable as the 2005 ACT Champion - a whopping 2.5 points ahead. Unless something dramatic happens tomorrow night, he will also have gone through undefeated, conceding draws only to Chris Tran and Jeremy Reading and beating Junta Ikeda.

Looks like Michael will be a very worthy entrant to the Aus Champs in Brisbane. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Rafizadeh
16-09-2005, 11:45 AM
Hey does anyone know the provisional draw for the final round?

cheers

jenni
16-09-2005, 01:33 PM
Sigh! No - Shannon has asked me that at least three times today.

Peter is DOP and presumably has the info.

Rafizadeh
16-09-2005, 02:01 PM
I kinda did the draw in my head for the first 10 boards assuming Reading and Hummel aren't having bye this week I figured it out to be :

Lattimor-Wei
Ikeda-Grcic
Reading-Ali
Guo-Ninchich
Rout-Tran
Kishore-Rama
Hoang-Xing
Yuan-Oliver
Mitchell-Hummel
Palma-McCoy

But my predictions have been pretty bad as of late, so its probably wrong

jenni
16-09-2005, 03:06 PM
I would have thought Michael would more likely get Milan because of colours?

Otherwise yes who knows :)

Denis_Jessop
16-09-2005, 04:14 PM
I would have thought Michael would more likely get Milan because of colours?

Otherwise yes who knows :)

This is where you need a few people to have been running the event unoffically on SP all along to second-guess the Arbiter :cool:

DJ

jenni
16-09-2005, 05:05 PM
This is where you need a few people to have been running the event unoffically on SP all along to second-guess the Arbiter :cool:

DJ

Well I would have thought Ian would have, but he seems to have been very silent. :whistle:

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 01:12 PM
Hello,

What an absolute joke of a championship, remembering that the winner gains entry to the Oz champs. This only strengthens my position that winning a Melbourne club championship or even a Box Hill championship would be more of an achievement (in chess playing strength). Therefore implying that the Australian qualifying structure for the Oz champs ought to be changed.


I would hasten to add that even the major at Doeberl would be a better qualifying tournament for the Oz champs. I mean honestly how can you set a certain standard of national chess strength/professionalism if a qualifying event has such a poor field. 18 players are under 1200? What on earth is a young kid supposed to aspire to in chess if they can play in, what should be, the states premium event, pretty much as a beginner?


Cheers Fg7

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 01:26 PM
Yes the ACT Championship is weaker than most, with the usual champion being around 2000, but the in recent years the event has strengthened in recent years, and no-one is complaining about the Tassie champ who will at best the same strength as Michael Wei.

Each state and territory has a right to have it's state champion represent that state or territory. It's also not Canberra or Tassie's fault that there are no players rated 2200+ there.

If a NT player wanted to compete and they were 1600 than people may have right to complain, but even then if NT rejoins the ACF than they would deserve the right to have their champ play to.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 01:41 PM
Yes the ACT Championship is weaker than most, with the usual champion being around 2000, but the in recent years the event has strengthened in recent years, and no-one is complaining about the Tassie champ who will at best the same strength as Michael Wei.

Speak for yourself, obviously I have complained about it in the past as have others.




Each state and territory has a right to have it's state champion represent that state or territory. It's also not Canberra or Tassie's fault that there are no players rated 2200+ there.


They have a right to be state champion, that is true. But to suggest that this should automatically be accepted as a right to play in the Oz champs is IMO outdated. The world has changed, its time to think globally and not regionally, you ought to pick the best possible field for Australian chess not Canberra or Tasmania.

Furthermore, why isn't it Canberra or Tasmania's fault that they do not have players over 2200? Whos fault is it, the ACF? Clearly they could have players over 2200 if they really wanted them to, maybe they could even obtain a grant from the government for such a reality. Put up an add, wanted IM to resdie in Canberra must be prepared to play chess, here is the renumeration package.

No I disagree with you Liberace, I believe it is their fault they have no players over 2200. I believe they should accept that as reality.

cheers Fg7

jenni
17-09-2005, 01:42 PM
Yes the ACT Championship is weaker than most, with the usual champion being around 2000, but the in recent years the event has strengthened in recent years, and no-one is complaining about the Tassie champ who will at best the same strength as Michael Wei.

.

Quite right Lee. How is the ACT supposed to build up its numbers and quality without having the opportunity to play in competitions like this. We are a town of 300,000 people - how are you supposed to have the numbers of strong players that a state with 5,000,000 have.

In any case Michael is much stronger than his rating suggests. With the current ceiling on the ACT, it is very hard to make progress with rating. You only have to look at ACT players results in interstate competitions to know that.

I would think either Michael or Junta would qualify for the Aus Champs on rating if they lived in Victoria or NSW.

I consider them slightly ahead of Gareth at the moment and I was told recently by a player rated around 700 points more than FG7, that Gareth should consider playing the Aus Champs as he would not disgrace himself in the tournament given his increase in ability. (he's not going to, as he wants to play the juniors, given it is his last year).

I think if we took our 5 best players and put them into a Box Hill tournament, they would give them a run for their money. I concede Melbourne CC has some seriously good players. Although I do note that Luke Cutting - a weak ex ACT player had a fairly good upset in the first round.

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 01:51 PM
Speak for yourself, obviously I have complained about it in the past as have others.



They have a right to be state champion, that is true. But to suggest that this should automatically be accepted as a right to play in the Oz champs is IMO outdated. The world has changed, its time to think globally and not regionally, you ought to pick the best possible field for Australian chess not Canberra or Tasmania.

Furthermore, why isn't it Canberra or Tasmania's fault that they do not have players over 2200? Whos fault is it, the ACF? Clearly they could have players over 2200 if they really wanted them to, maybe they could even obtain a grant from the government for such a reality. Put up an add, wanted IM to resdie in Canberra must be prepared to play chess, here is the renumeration package.

No I disagree with you Liberace, I believe it is their fault they have no players over 2200. I believe they should accept that as reality.

cheers Fg7

ACT Chess is reasonably well organised, with a good club sence. There are many reasons why new players would want to play in Canberra. Your suggestion of a renumeration package for an IM is absurd. What pay an IM, to live in Canberra and play chess?? Um... don't think so... Sure a coaching gig would help, but it's not practical. Canberra does well for a little country town with 350,000 people. Melbourne with 10 times that amount has a bit of an advantage...

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 01:57 PM
I consider them slightly ahead of Gareth at the moment and I was told recently by a player rated around 700 points more than FG7, that Gareth should consider playing the Aus Champs as he would not disgrace himself in the tournament given his increase in ability. (he's not going to, as he wants to play the juniors, given it is his last year).Yes, what could someone 700 points higher rated than FG7 possibly know about chess that FG7 doesnt. :hmm:

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 02:02 PM
Quite right Lee. How is the ACT supposed to build up its numbers and quality without having the opportunity to play in competitions like this. We are a town of 300,000 people - how are you supposed to have the numbers of strong players that a state with 5,000,000 have.


Irrelevent. Iceland has 250,000 people and they are not short of GMs.


In any case Michael is much stronger than his rating suggests. With the current ceiling on the ACT, it is very hard to make progress with rating. You only have to look at ACT players results in interstate competitions to know that.
Irrelevent. Its not about individual players, its about the quality of the qualifying tournament. Any other issue about this ought to be taken up with the ACF rating officer.


I would think either Michael or Junta would qualify for the Aus Champs on rating if they lived in Victoria or NSW.
Somehow I doubt it..which is the point you fail to comprehend.




I consider them slightly ahead of Gareth at the moment and I was told recently by a player rated around 700 points more than FG7, that Gareth should consider playing the Aus Champs as he would not disgrace himself in the tournament given his increase in ability. (he's not going to, as he wants to play the juniors, given it is his last year).

What has this got to do with the price of fish. None of these competitors have an Australian rating of 2150. All of them would struggle to win the Australian reserves. None of them could win the Victorian championship based on their historical performances.

Furthermore, yes it is true somebody 700 points may have an influence on who gets into the Australian championship...so whats new this has been happening for years in australian chess. These type of people are the australian chess mafia, always with a sympathetic ear listening to them on the ACF council




I think if we took our 5 best players and put them into a Box Hill tournament, they would give them a run for their money. I concede Melbourne CC has some seriously good players. Although I do note that Luke Cutting - a weak ex ACT player had a fairly good upset in the first round.

So what? If we took the 18 other competitors and put them in a Box Hill tournament they would not be allowed to play in certain sections until they
earnt their stripes. IMO Box Hill has the right idea, make it competitive, not disheartening.

cheers fg7

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Yes, what could someone 700 points higher rated than FG7 possibly know about chess that FG7 doesnt. :hmm:

What an absolute infant.

Considering we are talking about the orgainsation of chess and not actually chess then it is a fair bet that I could actually know more about these issues then even some of our resident GMs or IMs.

Only an imbecile would suggest that chess knowledge as a player was needed for organising chess tournament structures. :crazy:

cheers Fg7

four four two
17-09-2005, 02:12 PM
I think the point FG7 is tring to make here in relation to qualifying is that potentially a 1800 player could win a state title,and such a player would be truly out of their depth in an Australian championship. Maybe a better solution is to have a potentially weak state title winner in the major with free entry and travel costs payed for by the ACF. The players who regularly miss the 2150 cut off who are not juniors are often annoyed that they are excluded by a few points. :hmm:

jenni
17-09-2005, 02:17 PM
What has this got to do with the price of fish. None of these competitors have an Australian rating of 2150. All of them would struggle to win the Australian reserves. None of them could win the Victorian championship based on their historical performances.


Let me see - Junta Ikeda against Ian Rogers in the NSW Open - Junta won. Junta Ikeda against Vladimir Feldman - Junta won.

The Major at Doeberl was won by Shervin Refizadeh - a good player (one of the better ones in the ACT, but inactive for many years), but once again I couldn't see Shervin winning an ACT Champs that had Michael and Junta in it, so your previous comment about the winner of the major being more worthy is just plain silly.

I stand by my comments that the ACT players remain under-rated and would be much higher interstate.

I'll give two examples - Laura Moylan who had a rating of 1800+ when she left the ACT and is now nearly 2100. Vladimir Smirnov who was Michael's rating when he was in the ACT and is now over 2200. Not all of this can be attributed to a sudden increase in playing strength.


We've also had a player move recently to NSW - good solid 300, but really not anything more than that.

Since moving to NSW he is shooting up the rating list and I've been told he is defintely 1200 strength maybe higher....

I don't believe the rating system can sort out these local pool problems, but don't think that the number against someone's name is the whole story when it comes to the ACT.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 02:19 PM
Your suggestion of a renumeration package for an IM is absurd. What pay an IM, to live in Canberra and play chess?? Um... don't think so... Sure a coaching gig would help, but it's not practical.

The Victorian Government just dished out big bucks for some art festivel to paint park land trees, blue.

If you believe that Canberra, of all places, would find it hard to get a grant of $40,000 for a GM or IM to play chess there, then you lack vision. Everything is possible and paying somebody to play chess is not unusual by world standards. All it requires is for somebody to actually attempt it.

cheers Fg7

jenni
17-09-2005, 02:21 PM
I think the point FG7 is tring to make here in relation to qualifying is that potentially a 1800 player could win a state title,and such a player would be truly out of their depth in an Australian championship. Maybe a better solution is to have a potentially weak state title winner in the major with free entry and travel costs payed for by the ACF. The players who regularly miss the 2150 cut off who are not juniors are often annoyed that they are excluded by a few points. :hmm:

This is a more rational point of view. I would not be opposed to the state champions having to have a certain strength level. (although obviously not the 2150 one).

It is of course always annoying to miss out by a few points. Even though I dislike mr goat and his way of presenting things, I actually don't dislike his concept of a qualifying tournament - seems fairer. Although it might result in even more up and coming juniors coming in. :hmm:

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 02:27 PM
Let me see - Junta Ikeda against Ian Rogers in the NSW Open - Junta won. Junta Ikeda against Vladimir Feldman - Junta won.



Let me guess you have a hidden agenda going on don't you. Junta, who by the way is not a state champion, will be playing in the Australian championships. Let me guess...He will be given a wild card, because he is a junior..because of some magical influence.




The Major at Doeberl was won by Shervin Refizadeh - a good player (one of the better ones in the ACT, but inactive for many years), but once again I couldn't see Shervin winning an ACT Champs that had Michael and Junta in it, so your previous comment about the winner of the major being more worthy is just plain silly.

If it is so silly then why don't you just compare the quality of the fields. What is the average rating of the fireld for the Doeberl major as opposed to the state championship.



As for your other issues take them up with the ACF rating officer, its his responsibility.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 02:29 PM
The players who regularly miss the 2150 cut off who are not juniors are often annoyed that they are excluded by a few points. :hmm:If they were just missing the cutoff by a few rating points then I believe they would have a good chance of being allowed to play if they applied.
Perhaps their problem is that they miss the rating cutoff by a good few rating points.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 02:31 PM
What an absolute infant.You are the one sounding like you need a diaper change. :whistle:

Considering we are talking about the orgainsation of chess and not actually chess then it is a fair bet that I could actually know more about these issues then even some of our resident GMs or IMs.

Only an imbecile would suggest that chess knowledge as a player was needed for organising chess tournament structures. :crazy:I'm suggesting that a player 700 points above you might have a better understanding of the merits of who should participate.

Also has been argued before, players can get into the Aus Championship on merit by meeting the minimum rating requirements. However it is considered important that all State Champions be given the right to compete in the Australian Championship.

Perhaps the problem is that you dont qualify for the Australian Championships on rating.

jenni
17-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Let me guess you have a hidden agenda going on don't you. Junta, who by the way is not a state champion, will be playing in the Australian championships. Let me guess...He will be given a wild card, because he is a junior..because of some magical influence.

Absolutely - would love to see Junta play this.



If it is so silly then why don't you just compare the quality of the fields. What is the average rating of the fireld for the Doeberl major as opposed to the state championship.

As I said I am not terribly impressed with the quality of the major - ratings don't impress me. I've lived in the ACT for too long....

four four two
17-09-2005, 02:36 PM
What do you think is the possibility of Armen Aghamalyan[2094],Domagoj Dragicevic[2106], and David Hacche[2084] of getting in to the Australian champioships Bill? :hmm:

jenni
17-09-2005, 02:44 PM
Ok I have to go and do some housework, so really can't stay and play anymore. :)

I will admit that Michael Wei will be in China when the Aus Champs are on, so won't be able to play. I have known this for some weeks, but couldn't resist posting that he was a potential to play the Aus Champs, because I knew FG7 would go hysterical. ;)

However the ACT still has the right to have a player in the Aus Champs, so we might still be sending a "weak" player - a decision for the ACTCA.

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 02:49 PM
Ok I have to go and do some housework, so really can't stay and play anymore. :)

I will admit that Michael Wei will be in China when the Aus Champs are on, so won't be able to play. I have known this for some weeks, but couldn't resist posting that he was a potential to play the Aus Champs, because I knew FG7 would go hysterical. ;)

However the ACT still has the right to have a player in the Aus Champs, so we might still be sending a "weak" player - a decision for the ACTCA.

I suggest the ACTCA pick Jay Hoole to play the Australian Championship. ;)

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 02:58 PM
What do you think is the possibility of Armen Aghamalyan[2094],Domagoj Dragicevic[2106], and David Hacche[2084] of getting in to the Australian champioships Bill? :hmm:I think two of the three would have very good chances.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 03:00 PM
I'm suggesting that a player 700 points above you might have a better understanding of the merits of who should participate.


False. What you are suggesting is that the qualifications rules can be broken if you happen to carry favor with the ACF selection panel.This is how the Australian Chess Mafia works...spots for the boys, nepotism and self interest over transparency. What sort of an organisation would actually listen to the opinion of a fellow competitor over its own selection criteria in relation to who gets in and who doesn't get in?

Anyway you suggested no such thing you just wanted to have a cheap shot clown.




Also has been argued before, players can get into the Aus Championship on merit by meeting the minimum rating requirements. However it is considered important that all State Champions be given the right to compete in the Australian Championship. Because your organistaion (ACF) is comprised mainly of state delegates who may actually have a significant vested interest to lose if they actually changed the qualification structure. How can Australian chess move forward if weak championships such as the one in Canberra are shown to have more weight on a slection panel then even something of the magnitude of the Australian Open. Your organisations are dinosaurs, they use outdated guiding principles and furthermore they bend those rules to suit themselves.




Perhaps the problem is that you dont qualify for the Australian Championships on rating. Truth be known I would never played it in unless I actually felt like I deserved to play in it. Based on rating I clearly do not deserve to play in the event. But what I will say is this..I will not play in an Interstate Reserves tournament until the qualifying selection is changed since it seems unfair.

four four two
17-09-2005, 03:01 PM
Well I hope all three make it...or are at least asked . :clap: :clap:

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 03:05 PM
Absolutely - would love to see Junta play this.
Exactly as I thought. Biased, prejudice, nepotistic, just like most in the chess mafia you have no regard for "Australian chess" you just want to fulfill your own meglomaniac criteria.




As I said I am not terribly impressed with the quality of the major - ratings don't impress me. I've lived in the ACT for too long....

I don't know why the ACF dosen't appoint you as an Olympiad selector. Forget about ratings or tournament results just let the Canberra housewife hand pick her personal pets. What a great way to run chess...not.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 03:09 PM
However the ACT still has the right to have a player in the Aus Champs, so we might still be sending a "weak" player - a decision for the ACTCA.

Exactly my point. The ACF does not decide, the States decide which brown noser to send, should it be eenie meanie miney or moe? Strictly amateurs only!! Just like the good old days aint it, you sure your not a Jammo clone?

cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 03:19 PM
False. What you are suggesting is that the qualifications rules can be broken if you happen to carry favor with the ACF selection panel.This is how the Australian Chess Mafia works...spots for the boys, nepotism and self interest over transparency. What sort of an organisation would actually listen to the opinion of a fellow competitor over its own selection criteria in relation to who gets in and who doesn't get in?I'm not suggesting that at all, although I can understand how a clown like you could believe it.

Anyway you suggested no such thing you just wanted to have a cheap shot clown.There was nothing cheap about my shot.

Because your organistaion (ACF) is comprised mainly of state delegates who may actually have a significant vested interest to lose if they actually changed the qualification structure. How can Australian chess move forward if weak championships such as the one in Canberra are shown to have more weight on a slection panel then even something of the magnitude of the Australian Open. Your organisations are dinosaurs, they use outdated guiding principles and furthermore they bend those rules to suit themselves.Because it is the Asutralian Championship. It isnt the Australian Championship minus Tasmania or ACT because some goat thinks their State Champion doesnt deserve a jersey.

Truth be known I would never played it in unless I actually felt like I deserved to play in it. Based on rating I clearly do not deserve to play in the event. But what I will say is this..I will not play in an Interstate Reserves tournament until the qualifying selection is changed since it seems unfair.Have you ever played in an Australian Open outside VIC.
Also apart from Doeberl Cups and the 1996 Lidums event in SA have you actually ever played in states like NSW, QLD, WA or TAS.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 03:25 PM
Well I hope all three make it...or are at least asked . :clap: :clap:No, they would have to apply unless they can get their ACF Dec 2005 rating to at least 2150.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 03:29 PM
Also apart from Doeberl Cups and the 1996 Lidums event in SA have you actually ever played in states like NSW, QLD, WA or TAS.

Well Yes I have goose.

I once finished =2nd in the Bondi Open when I was 1800 behind Gedevani, tooks some good scalps that tournament. I also played in some 1hr event that was Oz rated years ago beating Wohl and Fuller so stick that in your pipe and smoke it! I am quite prepared to play interstate in a tournament, but only if it offers me something as a player.

Since you destroyed the rating system it appears that ratings are not enough to motivate me anymore, clown.

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
17-09-2005, 03:46 PM
perhaps time for a thread split :hmm:

jenni
17-09-2005, 03:46 PM
I don't know why the ACF dosen't appoint you as an Olympiad selector. Forget about ratings or tournament results just let the Canberra housewife hand pick her personal pets. What a great way to run chess...not.



At least the pets I pick are up and comers with potential not the has been hacks that you favour.

Must get back to that house work - so much to do so little time...

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 04:00 PM
Well Yes I have goose.

I once finished =2nd in the Bondi Open when I was 1800 behind Gedevani, tooks some good scalps that tournament. I also played in some 1hr event that was Oz rated years ago beating Wohl and Fuller so stick that in your pipe and smoke it! I am quite prepared to play interstate in a tournament, but only if it offers me something as a player.So given you have not mentioned an interstate Australian Open are you saying you have never found an interstate Australian Open offering you anything as a player?

Since you destroyed the rating system it appears that ratings are not enough to motivate me anymore, clown.Yes well your desire for the ELO system with its horribly underrated juniors and other problems well known.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:03 PM
At least the pets I pick are up and comers with potential not the has been hacks that you favour.

You really are a total jerk

jenni
17-09-2005, 04:12 PM
You really are a total jerk

Don't worry mate - the feeling is mutual and has been for years - thus the reason behind this amusing trolling exercise.....

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:14 PM
Yes well your desire for the ELO system with its horribly underrated juniors and other problems well known.

Gletsos you lose every arguement you start, why bother starting new ones when you cannot even understand the most basic concepts like fairness, ethics and transparency.

You expect people to support your view on Chessguru, but don't seem to comprehend that you do exactly the same sort of things to major sections of the Australian chess playing community by behaving unethically.

I am sick to death of talking to stupid people like yourself who want to make these issues personal.

cheers fg7

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:18 PM
Don't worry mate - the feeling is mutual and has been for years - thus the reason behind this amusing trolling exercise.....

But the difference with me and you is that I am not the one in a position of power over other people. I am not the one exercising that power over others unethically. Hypocrite

Cheers Fg7

P.S Im not your mate, luv, so go and do your dishes like you promised.

Rafizadeh
17-09-2005, 04:24 PM
It seem's this firegoat character has some idea that Victoria is the holy mecca of chess. Time to take a reality check you idiot.

If your victorian system is that successful, seeing as you have 13 times canberra's population then why are our strongest juniors stronger than your strongest juniours in basically every single age group? (keeping in mind we are deprived of the holy 2300 rated gods that your state posseses).

And of course like always you'll find a way to bring up some pointless argument that no one even cares about just so you can feel special and part of a conversation to occupy your precious :wall: time with .

I think you need to find youself a new hobby mate, seems like a sad old life your living on these bulletin boards, finding something new to winge about every day.

jenni
17-09-2005, 04:28 PM
But the difference with me and you is that I am not the one in a position of power over other people. I am not the one exercising that power over others unethically. Hypocrite

Cheers Fg7

P.S Im not your mate, luv, so go and do your dishes like you promised.

Gosh - I'm flattered. :rolleyes: How on earth do I have a position of power?

I have as much as you do - I currently hold no "position" at all - unless you are counting Treasurer of Belconnen Chess CLub. I must admit it is quite a profitable little club, but I don't really think that position gives me anything - not even a seat on the ACTCA....

I really should have listened to all those people trying to talk me into standing as ACF President last year - then I really would have had power :cool:

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 04:33 PM
Gletsos you lose every arguement you start,Strange I havent see you win any recently.

why bother starting new ones when you cannot even understand the most basic concepts like fairness, ethics and transparency.

You expect people to support your view on Chessguru, but don't seem to comprehend that you do exactly the same sort of things to major sections of the Australian chess playing community by behaving unethically.Ah more rambling rhetoric from the Mexican clown. I havent acted unethically at all.

I am sick to death of talking to stupid people like yourself who want to make these issues personal.Perhaps people take what you say personally because you attack them personally.
Of course a clown like you fails to understand that.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:37 PM
It seem's this firegoat character has some idea that Victoria is the holy mecca of chess. Time to take a reality check you idiot.


Reality check Canberra players over 2150- zero...hello zero. Canberra players in the Australian top 10 zero. Canberra players in the Olympiad team ...zero.
Wake up and smell the coffee sunshine.




If your victorian system is that successful, seeing as you have 13 times canberra's population then why are our strongest juniors stronger than your strongest juniours in basically every single age group? (keeping in mind we are deprived of the holy 2300 rated gods that your state posseses).



Another localised arguement. Did you not see my post before, How many GMS has Iceland produced compared to Canberra? Not bad for a country with a smaller population eh? Why don't you wake up and recognise that its not about your actual population size, its about your chess culture.



I think you need to find youself a new hobby mate, seems like a sad old life your living on these bulletin boards, finding something new to winge about every day.

Nice point, with the personal touch. So why are you here complaining? Grow up and investigate the political points behind the posts. Open your eyes!

cheers Fg7
P.S you mis-spelt whinge which is fine by me since I don't know where you learnt to spell, its your life you can mispell it anyway you want.

shaun
17-09-2005, 04:43 PM
Reality check Canberra players over 2150- zero...hello zero. Canberra players in the Australian top 10 zero. Canberra players in the Olympiad team ...zero.

I know of two Canberra players who played in the last Olympiad, and one of those beat Dragocevic last time out ....

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 04:44 PM
Another localised arguement. Did you not see my post before, How many GMS has Iceland produced compared to Canberra? Not bad for a country with a smaller population eh? Why don't you wake up and recognise that its not about your actual population size, its about your chess culture.

That is stupid. Yes Iceland with 250,000 people has 10 GM's. True. Australia has 20 million people and has 2.

Melbourne has 4 million people, and has 1 GM and 4 IM's. Canberra has 350,000 has no players 2150+... Big deal...

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:46 PM
That is stupid. Yes Iceland with 250,000 people has 10 GM's. True. Australia has 20 million people and has 2.

Melbourne has 4 million people, and has 1 GM and 4 IM's. Canberra has 350,000 has no players 2150+... Big deal...

Then stop rabbitting on about population...its not an issue is it?

cheers Fg7

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 04:48 PM
Then stop rabbitting on about population...its not an issue is it?

cheers Fg7

A larger population can support more infrastructure and so can offer more things to more people. In this case it's chess infrastructure....

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 04:52 PM
A larger population can support more infrastructure and so can offer more things to more people. In this case it's chess infrastructure....

Why can you not see the flaw in your own arguement. It has very little to do with population. It is about chess culture. The reason Canberra chess is weak is because it has a poor chess culture (relatively). You are all quick to jump on the population bandwagon, but this is clearly refuted by an example like Iceland.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 04:54 PM
P.S you mis-spelt whinge which is fine by me since I don't know where you learnt to spell, its your life you can mispell it anyway you want.If you are going to be lame and get picky about spelling perhaps you should help you mate Matt with his. Recently he has had trouble with absurd (obsurd),

four four two
17-09-2005, 04:56 PM
USA has 280 million people and about 70,000 registered uscf members,size of country and wealth of country dont necessarily give you great chess infrastructure, compare Hungary to America. If you take away the soviet imports the USA wouldnt rank in the top ten in the Olympiad. Hungarys strength lies in their chess culture,something that any nation or region can improve over time. Who would have thought that Vietnam would overtake Australia as a chess playing country,and yet they have... :hmm:

Vlad
17-09-2005, 05:24 PM
I think the argument that has been made by Canberra people is that both Michael and Junta would be around 2150 if they lived in Sydney or Melborne. I would think it is quite reasonable. The rating of top Canberra players should be about 100-150 points higher.

The argument the goat is making is that some other people screwed the rating system sounds very childish to me. If you so clever why do not you design such a rating system that always reflects real strength. It is always easy to accuse somebody else of not doing proper job especially if you do not understand the problem.

The argument about chess mafia is just absurd. I would be very happy to give my place to Junta and I think most of the people who are eligible to play in the championship would share my opinion.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 05:24 PM
If you are going to be lame and get picky about spelling perhaps you should help you mate Matt with his. Recently he has had trouble with absurd (obsurd),

Squire, the correct English is.......you should help your mate. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 05:26 PM
The correct English squire is.......you should help your mate. :hand:No, I just had a spelling mistake. Thanks for being so lame as to not realise that.

Denis_Jessop
17-09-2005, 05:32 PM
Gosh - I'm flattered. :rolleyes: How on earth do I have a position of power?

I have as much as you do - I currently hold no "position" at all - unless you are counting Treasurer of Belconnen Chess CLub. I must admit it is quite a profitable little club, but I don't really think that position gives me anything - not even a seat on the ACTCA....

I really should have listened to all those people trying to talk me into standing as ACF President last year - then I really would have had power :cool:

Jenni, I'm sure there is at least one position on the ACTCA Committee that could be found for you whenever you like. As for the ACF President, first, don't be drawn into believing that power stuff - it's mostly a diplomatic balancing act - and, secondly, you should have told me before and saved me lots of hassle as that's also much of what it involves (ask Graeme and George, too).

DJ

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 05:40 PM
The argument the goat is making is that some other people screwed the rating system sounds very childish to me. If you so clever why do not you design such a rating system that always reflects real strength. It is always easy to accuse somebody else of not doing proper job especially if you do not understand the problem.


mate, I never made any arguement about ratings. All I have said consistenly is that IMO the rating system was fine until Gletsos came along.




The argument about chess mafia is just absurd. I would be very happy to give my place to Junta and I think most of the people who are eligible to play in the championship would share my opinion.

The problem with this viewpoint ethically drug, is that its not a choice that ought to be made by players like you. The facts are ,there are criteria established by the ACF that ought to followed. IMO some of these established qualifications need to be changed. All that has happened in this thread is that people are suggesting that I dont have any basis for these claims. But I think most people in this thread are wrong. If you look at the crosstable of the Canberra championship you can quickly recognise that it is not a strong tournament.

cheers Fg7

Michael Wei
17-09-2005, 05:55 PM
Bloody hell, juniors like me and Junta actually have school (in my case, college) and *a life* to lead.

Plus, I'm actually the highest rated player in Canberra now. How the hell do you expect me to get any higher level competition, besides travelling to Sydney and such, that I have *very* little time for?

Oh, and I share drug's view that I would give my place to Junta.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 05:57 PM
Bloody hell, juniors like me and Junta actually have school (in my case, college) and *a life* to lead.

Plus, I'm actually the highest rated player in Canberra now. How the hell do you expect me to get any higher level competition, besides travelling to Sydney and such, that I have *very* little time for?Michael, pay no attention to fg7.

Michael Wei
17-09-2005, 06:01 PM
Michael, pay no attention to fg7.

*nods*

In relation to the tournament itself, what is the prize list exactly? Wasn't it supposed to be released much earlier in the tournament?

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 06:07 PM
*nods*

In relation to the tournament itself, what is the prize list exactly? Wasn't it supposed to be released much earlier in the tournament?If you are directing that at me and referring to the ACT Championship then I wouldnt know.
Perhaps Denis or Jenni does.

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 06:10 PM
Bloody hell, juniors like me and Junta actually have school (in my case, college) and *a life* to lead.

Plus, I'm actually the highest rated player in Canberra now. How the hell do you expect me to get any higher level competition, besides travelling to Sydney and such, that I have *very* little time for?

Oh, and I share drug's view that I would give my place to Junta.

Michael congratulations on winning the champs...It's a shame U can't play in Brisbane... Best of luck in the future...

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 06:12 PM
Bloody hell, juniors like me and Junta actually have school (in my case, college) and *a life* to lead.



Just wait until you join the real world and actually have to work for a living!


cheers Fg7

jenni
17-09-2005, 06:49 PM
If you are directing that at me and referring to the ACT Championship then I wouldnt know.
Perhaps Denis or Jenni does.

Not me - I was overseas for half of it. I understood Ian Rout was working out the prize list, but the e-mail list wasn't working properly so maybe he didn't send it out.

jenni
17-09-2005, 06:53 PM
If your victorian system is that successful, seeing as you have 13 times canberra's population then why are our strongest juniors stronger than your strongest juniours in basically every single age group? (keeping in mind we are deprived of the holy 2300 rated gods that your state posseses).
.

Its no good using junior stats with the goat - Victoria's are so bad at the moment, that he has to ignore them so he just ignores the whole junior environment.

Where his next generation of Victorian strong players is going to come from I don't know - from imports from interstate and overseas I guess.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2005, 06:57 PM
BTW what is happening with the ACT email list archive page at anu. It seems to have been down for the last week.

Alan Shore
17-09-2005, 07:41 PM
Haha.

I think it's all pretty amusing. The Australian Championship is for players 2150+ and the winners of state champs get automatic entry right?

Given that criteria, it seems pretty fair. The fact that FG7's mates are U2150 is irrelevant in that respect. The fact there is not a numerical limit on the number of entrants but rather distinct qualifications is irrelevant too. It's just too bad for Hacche etc. They'll just have to win (!) the major and (!) get more prizemoney and (!) improve their rating to play next time around.

Secondly, a player of Michael's calibur will be (or rather would be) competitive in the Aus champs, thus I don't see a problem. It would only be farcical if there were someone say, more than 250 points lower than the 2150 cutoff playing, as it would be a waste of time for their opponents.

So... what's the problem then? Storm in a teacup?

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 07:48 PM
Haha.

I think it's all pretty amusing. The Australian Championship is for players 2150+ and the winners of state champs get automatic entry right?

Given that criteria, it seems pretty fair. The fact that FG7's mates are U2150 is irrelevant in that respect. The fact there is not a numerical limit on the number of entrants but rather distinct qualifications is irrelevant too. It's just too bad for Hacche etc. They'll just have to win (!) the major and (!) get more prizemoney and (!) improve their rating to play next time around.

Secondly, a player of Michael's calibur will be (or rather would be) competitive in the Aus champs, thus I don't see a problem. It would only be farcical if there were someone say, more than 250 points lower than the 2150 cutoff playing, as it would be a waste of time for their opponents.

So... what's the problem then? Storm in a teacup?

I agree with all that execpt the last bit. If the NT Champ is 1400 he/she still deserves a gig even if they score zero...

Alan Shore
17-09-2005, 08:05 PM
I agree with all that execpt the last bit. If the NT Champ is 1400 he/she still deserves a gig even if they score zero...

It'd be both humilating for the player and seen as a waste of time by their opponents. Sure they could but it'd be a mockery. If I magically qualified for the Aus champs there's no way I'd participate for those reasons.

Thunderspirit
17-09-2005, 08:11 PM
It'd be both humilating for the player and seen as a waste of time by their opponents. Sure they could but it'd be a mockery. If I magically qualified for the Aus champs there's no way I'd participate for those reasons.

I understand that, but assuming they wanted to play I believe that should be given that opporunity, though I can understand people saying they should be there....

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2005, 09:43 PM
I will admit that Michael Wei will be in China when the Aus Champs are on, so won't be able to play.

Damn! I was going to have a go at making the goat put up or shut up by betting him $100 that Michael Wei outscored at least two (2) players who gained entry to the Champs based on rating.

This little obsession of firegoat's was done to death on the original clowns thread and various subsequent occasions. There is a strong merit-based argument for allowing all State Champions to play because although several state champions will not be that competitive, it is difficult to build and maintain a high rating in a small state and therefore letting all state champions in is a guard against a player missing out because their state rating pool is deflated or inactive, or their rating is harmed by taking the odd professional draw to win tournaments.

There is also an argument for the practice because it adds to the prestige of state titles and gives strong players an extra reason to compete in them.

firegoat's Iceland argument is spurious because Iceland has more of an indoors culture that makes chess more attractive. Indeed it is about chess culture but chess culture is also connected with other factors like climate and broader attitudes to intellectual pursuits. I showed this on the 2002 BB when I posted a list of the top 20 nations in the world by FIDE rated players per head of population (qualification: pop>100,000). With the exception of Israel (which has many ex-Soviets) all were in Northern, Western or Eastern Europe. Iceland was still a freak case with about three times as great a density of rated players as the next country.

Surely it would make more sense to compare chess cultures between states and on any indicator except proportion of players with very high ratings (of whom there are so few ACT would not be expected to have any significant number) the ACT actually has far and away the most active chess culture in Australia.

jenni
17-09-2005, 10:41 PM
As for the ACF President, first, don't be drawn into believing that power stuff - it's mostly a diplomatic balancing act DJ

I know that Denis and having seen the harmony you brought to a fragile ACT environment I knew you would be a good President. I also knew it would be something I would be bad at - I discussed it with Shaun at one point and he agreed - he said I would become frustrated, lose my temper and throw all my toys out of the cot. :owned:

jenni
17-09-2005, 10:51 PM
It might seem silly to bring this thread back on track, but here is Ian Rout's final report.

The ACT Championship was won with an overwhelming two-point margin by Michael Wei. In fact Michael was even further ahead after Round 10 at which point he had an unassailable lead so the final round was just about the minor places. Michael won eight games and conceded only three draws, to Chris Tran, Jeremy Reading and Milan Grcic, with no losses.

9 - Wei
7 - Lattimore, Ikeda
7 - Rout, Hoang, E. Xing, Ninchich, Grcic

[It is worth noting that Junta Ikeda missed the first 4 rounds due to playing first in the Australian Young Masters and then in the World Youth in Belfort. He was thus on 1.5 out of 4 from a zero point bye and 3 1/2 point byes
- Jenni ]

For the full table see

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/

Apart from the winner, notable performances relative to the forecasts of the rating system included Edward Xing, who exceeded his expected score by four points, and Mario Palma, Taiyang Zhang, Peter Shields and Tim Clark.

Prizes will be presented at Belconnen Chess Club next Friday at 7:30pm. All players are invited to attend whether or not they are playing in the BCC Championship which will commence immediately afterwards.

firegoat7
17-09-2005, 10:54 PM
There is a strong merit-based argument for allowing all State Champions to play because although several state champions will not be that competitive, it is difficult to build and maintain a high rating in a small state and therefore letting all state champions in is a guard against a player missing out because their state rating pool is deflated or inactive, or their rating is harmed by taking the odd professional draw to win tournaments.


Look I do not necessarily disagree with your point based on the current structure. But, I don't think it serves your state any good to support such an idea. After all it is one thing to allow a player into an event but it is a very different proposal to suggest that such an action is warranted.

I have changed my position on this idea because I do believe that their should be some aparatus for the best players in a state to test their mettle against the best opposition in the country. This includes weak states like Tasmania and Canberra.

But I think that would be best served with an active qualifying event with more then just one spot from each state up for grabs. I have already stated this position before so I will not delve into it again.

But I do want to make these two points. How can a tournament that has a dozen players u1200 playing in it be regarded as a legitimate qualifyer for the Australian championship? Quite simply if I was to win such a tournament I would feel massively underprepared for such a step up in class.




firegoat's Iceland argument is spurious because Iceland has more of an indoors culture that makes chess more attractive. Indeed it is about chess culture but chess culture is also connected with other factors like climate and broader attitudes to intellectual pursuits. I showed this on the 2002 BB when I posted a list of the top 20 nations in the world by FIDE rated players per head of population (qualification: pop>100,000). With the exception of Israel (which has many ex-Soviets) all were in Northern, Western or Eastern Europe. Iceland was still a freak case with about three times as great a density of rated players as the next country.

Surely it would make more sense to compare chess cultures between states and on any indicator except proportion of players with very high ratings (of whom there are so few ACT would not be expected to have any significant number) the ACT actually has far and away the most active chess culture in Australia.

I find your chess culture arguement quite ignorant. Environmental factors do not actually prevent people from playing chess. You would be better served simply trying to follow a working model like Great Britain. The simple fact is that the current chess culture you have in Australia is not working properly. Since culture is something that is adaptable and able to be reproduced then it would make sense to copy something that does work. Canberra may have an active chess population but if that population is not exposed to quality chess then its current culture is a hinderance. Their is no use blaming the other states, take responsibility for your own states not producing the goods.

The key is to develop a pool of players, not just isolated individual achievements. Thats how it worked at Waverly in the 70s, argueably Australia most productive pool of chess talent ever.

cheers Fg7

Jezza
17-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Hello all,

I have been reading all of this and have found it quite funny. I thought that I should let it be known first that I am from the ACT and played in the ACT Championships.

Some thoughts on the comments so far:

The whole Iceland thingy - If you reduce everybody's rating in Iceland by an amount so that the top person is around 2000 what do you think this will do? I think that it will be just like the ACT. None of the 2000 people will be able to improve their rating due to the lack of chess players in the country unless they travel out of the country. This doesnt mean that their strength is lower, it just means that when the travel out of the country they will kick the other states, woops I mean countries butts and take their rating points. Blah, blah you know what I am getting at. It is only because Iceland already has highly rated players that they stay at that level. Not many ACT people regularly travel out of state for tournaments so we are trapped at around 2000.

ACT underrated - ACT is trapped at the 2000 level but I wont go into this too much. But it is true that people like Junta and Michael are at a higher standard that their rating suggests and everyone in the ACT for that fact. So if the rating system for the ACT reflected their strength, we would probably have a few ACT people qualify for the tournament by getting over 2150.

Paying for a 2400 IM to live it ACT - Were you serious? I hope not because that is the must stupid and ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

State Champion automatically qualifying - Why not? I mean there are 6 states and 2 territories and so you would assume that the only places were the champ is not 2150 is ACT, NT, TAS, and WA (I am not sure but I am guessing this). If ther think they will get their butt kicked then they dont have to play but if they do play, what is the problem with having only 4 lower players in the tournament???? It wont affect things that much. And anyway, they are the STATE CHAMPIONS and so have a right to play in the Australian Championships where the best people from EVERY state come together play. Otherwise the AUSTRALIAN championships would be the COMBINED NSW, QLD, VIC, SA, QLD championships.

To anyone who thinks that there should not be automatic qualifying I challenge you to come and play the top players in the ACT and then make up your mind whether they deserve to play.

Jezza

Jezza
17-09-2005, 11:36 PM
PS - I dont care about any of my spelling mistakes, bad sentences or repeated words and neither should you.

four four two
18-09-2005, 12:15 AM
And what about Australias biggest weekender in easter Michael,no rating points there ? :P
If people from sydney and victoria can make it to canberra,surely you can get to the bloody italian club. :owned:

antichrist
18-09-2005, 12:18 AM
When considering that only it is one rep from each state, and that probably 4/5 of them are above 2150 it is only one or two state reps who would be under 2150. Whereas I would guess that there are dozens of players over 2150. If one two players below 2150 don't make it due to one or two state reps being under 2150 it is not a big deal. It is only compensation for lack of opportunity which I don't think even FG7 is against in principle.

Thunderspirit
18-09-2005, 12:19 AM
And what about Australias biggest weekender in easter Michael,no rating points there ? :P
If people from sydney and victoria can make it to canberra,surely you can get to the bloody italian club. :owned:

Did you have to use 'Bloody' in this context? I don't think the sponsors would like that if they found out...

Hey Jez, do I know U??

Jezza
18-09-2005, 12:49 AM
Yeah Lee, you do ;) try and guess who it is

four four two
18-09-2005, 01:08 AM
I think one of the key points people here are missing is that the 2150 cutoff clearly discriminates against people who live in nsw and victoria, if your rating is 2100 your chance of winning a state championship is VERY small. In the case of victoria ,depending on who enters in any given year a player with a 2100 rating might not even qualify for the state championship. Armen Aghamalyan[2094], Domagoj Dragicevic[2106] and David Hacche[2084] would all be worthy players for the Australian championships,they are not pushovers by any stretch of the imagination. I personally think the cut off should be 2050,this would give alot of players whether they live in WA or are juniors a fair go. As for Tasmania, with such a small pool of players you are going to have to come to the mainland and get some scalps ,begonias your best annual option,if you are to have any national credibility. :whistle:

Dozy
18-09-2005, 07:05 AM
PS - I dont care about any of my spelling mistakes, bad sentences or repeated words and neither should you.
Sounds a bit defensive but we won't go into the subject of education standards. (I usually blame typos for my spelling mistakes.)

Now couple it with this one:



I do believe that their should be some aparatus for the best players in a state

and it reminded me of a BC comic strip published Sydney's Daily Telegraph sometime in the '70s.
You'll have to imagine the cartoons that went with it.


1st: How do you spell "their"?
2nd: Is that t-h-e-r-e, t-h-e-y-'-r-e or t-h-i-e-r?
1st: T-h-i-e-r.
2nd: T-h-e-i-r.
1st: I thought so!

Thunderspirit
18-09-2005, 07:49 AM
Yeah Lee, you do ;) try and guess who it is

Your most likely a current or recent ex-ACT Jnr player. If you are a junior from the educated nature of your post you would be an older junior 16+. My first guess would be Tor Lattamore...

jenni
18-09-2005, 12:15 PM
And what about Australias biggest weekender in easter Michael,no rating points there ? :P
If people from sydney and victoria can make it to canberra,surely you can get to the bloody italian club. :owned:

Michael started year 11 this year - In Canberra your very first assignment in year 11 counts as much towards your final UAI as any year 12 mark. At the beginning of year 11 (as I understand it) Michael's mum was basically not allowing him to play any chess and concentrate on getting a good start to year 11. Because of the strange timing of Easter this year Doeberl fell within a school term, not in holidays. Since then I think Michael's passion for chess has won out and he has been able to get permission to play a certain amount of chess, thus playing in the Premier which he won and the ACT Championships which he won.

Normally Michael would not only have played Doeberl, but the ANU and the NSW Open as well and probably sundry others. He has been one of our chess crazy juniors for many years. Although he has to miss the Aus Champs because of his trip to China, I have been told that he will be going to Queenstown.

Incidentally if we are looking at Doeberl - what about Gareth who grabbed a large amount of points, with draws agains Rujevic (whom he was beating - Rujevic had to squirm for the draw) and Hacche (other way round with Gareth fighting for the draw) and wins against Paul Broekhuyse and John Curtis. Gareth ended up on 4.5 along with IM Gary Lane, IM Rujevic, Hacche, George Xie, IM Guy West. Unfortunately a lot of the rating point were squandered in the very tough Premier (in which Gareth came 3rd but lost rating points).

jenni
18-09-2005, 12:16 PM
Your most likely a current or recent ex-ACT Jnr player. If you are a junior from the educated nature of your post you would be an older junior 16+. My first guess would be Tor Lattamore...

A clue Lee - in the ACT you are still a junior and eligible to play ACTJCL tournament, if you are under 20 on the 1st of Jan.....

jenni
18-09-2005, 01:04 PM
But I think that would be best served with an active qualifying event with more then just one spot from each state up for grabs. I have already stated this position before so I will not delve into it again.



So what are you doing to get it properly debated? The BB is the worst possible medium, as too many personalities come into it. Have you written a proposal and put it up to Denis and asked the ACF to consider it?

With certain safeguards a qualifying event could be an asset - getting people more active among other things and allowing the tyranny of rating to be overcome. However it is not ever going to get up by pontificating on the BB.



But I do want to make these two points. How can a tournament that has a dozen players u1200 playing in it be regarded as a legitimate qualifyer for the Australian championship? Quite simply if I was to win such a tournament I would feel massively underprepared for such a step up in class.

But are they really under 1200? An ACT player rated 300 moved to NSW at the beginning of the year - I have been told that he is a solid 1200, maybe even 1300 by someone who is at his new club. He was on the best improvers list recently with a massive gain. He is an adult.

We had another 300 point player in Doeberl minor who beat a 1300 NSW player in the first round. Libby told me that an NSW player told her after ANU that he didn't think he would come to Canberra anymore, as he is sick of llosing rating points. You can't categorise people as weak just because they have a rating of under 1200 - not in the ACT.



Canberra may have an active chess population but if that population is not exposed to quality chess then its current culture is a hinderance. Their is no use blaming the other states, take responsibility for your own states not producing the goods.

The key is to develop a pool of players, not just isolated individual achievements. Thats how it worked at Waverly in the 70s, argueably Australia most productive pool of chess talent ever.

cheers Fg7

We ARE trying to create a pool of players - that is why we now have 3 active juniors over 2000 and many more in the 1200+ band. Going on population size Victoria should have 45 juniors over 2000, however you have 3 as well. We try to retain our juniors as they become adults, to keep on increasing the pool. We are very interested in increasing the number playing chess as well as the quality. Our policy is to create an envionment where as many people as possible improve, not just throwing all the resources at one super star.

You assume everyone has the money and time to travel all the time to expose themselves to quality chess, but they don't. A large number of ACT players do travel and do get good results interstate, but there is a limit to how much you can do.

e.g in the NSW Open roughly 10% of the players were from the ACT.

The other problem is that Canberra is effectively a town of transients. A large number of people are posted in and out each year - defence, Public Servants, people getting promotions. Effectively Canberra has branch offices - if you want more interesting work or a higher paying job (outside of the public service), then Melbourne or Sydney is where you have to go.

The kids do view Canberra as a hole (or even a whole as Liberace would have it), and get out as soon as they can. These are all factors over which we have no control. Canberra has a large number of players and has increased quality hugely in the last 10 years, but if we can't retain our people at the top, then we are never going to be able to have IM's and 2300 people living locally.

I have tried to attract strong people to live in Canberra. e.g Michael Gluzman was really keen to leave the Victorian environment - he had seriously had enough of all the stress. I had schools and private people already lined up for him - he would have been able to walk into Canberra with a small business established and build it from there. Rima had even given us her resume and we were looking for work for her. In the end Canberra could not match the sort of job she wanted and she really didn't want to leave her family support networks in Melbourne, so it all fell through. I have made other attempts, but with as little success.

I really think Canberra is doing everything it can to build an active and quality environment, but there is only so much we can achieve. However do not think that our 2000 point players or even 800 point players are weak.

four four two
18-09-2005, 01:45 PM
Even if all of your 800 players were 1300 strength they would still be weak,the average rating of club players in Australia is 1500-1600 . ;)

Thunderspirit
18-09-2005, 01:54 PM
A clue Lee - in the ACT you are still a junior and eligible to play ACTJCL tournament, if you are under 20 on the 1st of Jan.....

Hi Jenni,
I didn't realise the ACTJCL approved jnr events up to U/20. I congratulate the JCL for adopting this policy, but I didn't know. :clap:

Over 18... Under 20... Jesse Macquire?? Failing that Jay Hoole has taken over my role is the Territory's oldest junior...

Thunderspirit
18-09-2005, 01:56 PM
Even if all of your 800 players were 1300 strength they would still be weak,the average rating of club players in Australia is 1500-1600 . ;)

Hi 4-4-2... Hate to be picky but statiscally 1600 is no longer avarage. 1450 is the average mark now... It helps to be one of Bill's mates... :owned:

Michael Wei
18-09-2005, 02:24 PM
Over 18... Under 20... Jesse Macquire?? Failing that Jay Hoole has taken over my role is the Territory's oldest junior...

Here's a big hint: Think about the name itself.

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:25 PM
Hi Jenni,
I didn't realise the ACTJCL approved jnr events up to U/20. I congratulate the JCL for adopting this policy, but I didn't know. :clap:

Over 18... Under 20... Jesse Macquire?? Failing that Jay Hoole has taken over my role is the Territory's oldest junior...

It was introduced 2 or 3 years ago and was known as the Reading amendment.

Your guesses are all wrong so far - especially Jey. :)

Michael Wei
18-09-2005, 02:27 PM
Michael started year 11 this year - In Canberra your very first assignment in year 11 counts as much towards your final UAI as any year 12 mark. At the beginning of year 11 (as I understand it) Michael's mum was basically not allowing him to play any chess and concentrate on getting a good start to year 11. Because of the strange timing of Easter this year Doeberl fell within a school term, not in holidays. Since then I think Michael's passion for chess has won out and he has been able to get permission to play a certain amount of chess, thus playing in the Premier which he won and the ACT Championships which he won.

Normally Michael would not only have played Doeberl, but the ANU and the NSW Open as well and probably sundry others. He has been one of our chess crazy juniors for many years. Although he has to miss the Aus Champs because of his trip to China, I have been told that he will be going to Queenstown.


Pretty much sums it up correctly... but which Queenstown tournament are you talking about, Jenni?

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:27 PM
Even if all of your 800 players were 1300 strength they would still be weak,the average rating of club players in Australia is 1500-1600 . ;)

Yes sloppy phrasing on my part - i should have said that our 800 point players are predominantly 1200+ strength and our 2000 point players are not weak.

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:29 PM
Pretty much sums it up correctly... but which Queenstown tournament are you talking about, Jenni?

Um Michael - the one at which your Dad just asked me to keep an eye on you?

Oops - perhaps he hasn't told you yet that he is plannig to let you go on your own?

Myabe I should just keep my mouth shut at this point, before I start a family fight between your parents. :eek:

Michael Wei
18-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Um Michael - the one at which your Dad just asked me to keep an eye on you?

Oops - perhaps he hasn't told you yet that he is plannig to let you go on your own?

Myabe I should just keep my mouth shut at this point, before I start a family fight between your parents. :eek:

XD Nah, it's ok, he's told me - but as far as I know, I'm only planning to go to the Zonals... I think.

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:41 PM
XD Nah, it's ok, he's told me - but as far as I know, I'm only planning to go to the Zonals... I think.
Michael !!!!

The Zonals only happen every 2 years, so no zonals next year. Queenstown is what is happening and it is going to be huge with heaps of GM's, IM's and strong players from Aus, and overseas.

Go and have a look at this site.

http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/

Michael Wei
18-09-2005, 02:48 PM
Michael !!!!

The Zonals only happen every 2 years, so no zonals next year. Queenstown is what is happening and it is going to be huge with heaps of GM's, IM's and strong players from Aus, and overseas.

Go and have a look at this site.

http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/

Yeah, it's THIS one that I was going to. My bad. :S

jenni
18-09-2005, 04:33 PM
As regards to ratings,I was talking about CLUB players,as opposed to juniors who mainly play in closed junior tournaments.If someone scores 30% you shouldnt be rated 800,you can only get a really low rating while playing reasonably well by playing in those closed junior tournaments. ;)

Not true in the ACT - we stopped normal rating most of our junior tournaments years ago to try to stop this problem. We have 3 junior tournaments a year that are ACF rated. The majority of ACF rated games that ACT juniors play are at adult weekenders and adult clubs. None of our junior clubs play normal rated games anymore. The person who was 300 who is on the best improvers list was an adult when he came to Canberra and was pretty much a beginner and was rated about 800. He lost 500 rating points playing at Belconnen (an adult chess club) and then went back to NSW, where his rating is immediately climbing again. It's a relative thing - if you have a ceiling at the top, then the people under you have to be rated less and the people under them have to be rated less etc etc.

four four two
18-09-2005, 05:33 PM
Can you explain to me how an adult who is rated under 1000,and who mainly plays against adults can lose 500 points? Wouldnt you have to lose at least 30 games straight against other people also rated under 1000? :hmm:

jenni
18-09-2005, 06:53 PM
Can you explain to me how an adult who is rated under 1000,and who mainly plays against adults can lose 500 points? Wouldnt you have to lose at least 30 games straight against other people also rated under 1000? :hmm:

That would be about right - he played every single tournament at Belco for a number of years and lost almost every game. Last year when he had become a heap stronger I think he had 2 wins and a draw the whole year. One at least of the wins was against another 300 point junior and I think he beat anothr adult. Belco does have a mix of adults and juniors - most of the newish adults have ratings under 800.

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2005, 08:43 PM
But I do want to make these two points. How can a tournament that has a dozen players u1200 playing in it be regarded as a legitimate qualifyer for the Australian championship? Quite simply if I was to win such a tournament I would feel massively underprepared for such a step up in class.

Irrelevant because in the Swiss system the winner won't play many of them and will get thoroughly tested against others who are performing well. Wei played a player rated 1195 in the first round but in the next ten rounds he played no-one below 1550.


I find your chess culture arguement quite ignorant. Environmental factors do not actually prevent people from playing chess. You would be better served simply trying to follow a working model like Great Britain.

... which is one of the countries from the colder-climate region I was referring to, so based on my argument there is no guarantee that what works there will work as well here.


Armen Aghamalyan[2094], Domagoj Dragicevic[2106] and David Hacche[2084] would all be worthy players for the Australian championships,they are not pushovers by any stretch of the imagination. I personally think the cut off should be 2050,this would give alot of players whether they live in WA or are juniors a fair go.

Not sure how many people following this debate are aware that Hacche played in the 2001-2 Aus Champs and scored a rather good 5/11. At the time his rating was 2103.


As for Tasmania, with such a small pool of players you are going to have to come to the mainland and get some scalps ,begonias your best annual option,if you are to have any national credibility.

Begonia, being on a long weekend, invariably clashes with our State Champs or Open. I discussed this with one of the Begonia organisers a few years ago and we couldn't find a solution - in Tas our hands are rather tied because we have a dispersed chess population and few long weekends that apply to all parts of the state.

From rather limited opportunities I can think of at least one win and numerous draws by Tassie players against titled opposition in the last 20 years or so.

antichrist
18-09-2005, 10:27 PM
That would be about right - he played every single tournament at Belco for a number of years and lost almost every game. Last year when he had become a heap stronger I think he had 2 wins and a draw the whole year. One at least of the wins was against another 300 point junior and I think he beat anothr adult. Belco does have a mix of adults and juniors - most of the newish adults have ratings under 800.

I am jumping here without reading previous posts, but I reakon whoever has the record should give up chess and even counselled to do so.

jenni
19-09-2005, 09:38 AM
I am jumping here without reading previous posts, but I reakon whoever has the record should give up chess and even counselled to do so.
He is actually a severely physically disabled person who loves playing chess and is getting heaps better. If you had read all the other posts you would have known he was on the best improvers list after moving to NSW, so no he shouldn't be giving up chess. :doh: I was using him as an example of why ACT under 1000 players are to be feared.....