PDA

View Full Version : Sydney grade matches joke



Pages : [1] 2

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 11:58 AM
Have you heard the one where the draw for the finals (3 rounds) in a teams competition is changed after the first one has already been played?
Well, it's not a joke, that's what the NSWCA has done.

The "new" pairings for the last 2 rounds are:

Round 2
St George vs Canterbury
Asquith Leagues Club vs Sydney Chess Academy.

Round 3
Sydney Chess Academy vs St George
Asquith Leagues Club vs Canterbury

I play for Sydney Chess Academy and we were supposed to play Asquith in round 2. The rules clealy stablish the pairings and you can't change them at will simply because you think it makes the competition more interesting (it's not like if we're going to get national TV to broadcast the event). I too would like the draw to be more interesting when I'm playing in an individual competition and would love to be paired against anyone I wanted, but I have common sense.

This unbelieveable measure breaks the rules of the competition, the pairings were clearly announced in advance and you can't change them.
At present Sydney Chess Academy is serious contemplating the possibility of withdrawing the competition and taking every possible measure (acf, etc.) to correct this ... bad joke.

I can't believe ANYONE WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND EXPECT TO GET AWAY WITH IT.
The fact that someone would try to manipulate the competition in such a way is simply beyond my comprehension.
The people that are behind this demonstrate the amount of respect that they have for this competition: NONE.
You can't toy with the rules like that. Correct this immediately.

Trent Parker
15-07-2005, 12:05 PM
Have you contacted the dop before you have post this here?

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 12:08 PM
er... excuse me, perhaps I'm missing something here and you actually meant: "has the dop contacted the teams involved before altering the rules of the competition?" :hmm:

arosar
15-07-2005, 12:10 PM
Hola Javier! You did exactly the right thing by posting here.

Gracias.

AR

Trent Parker
15-07-2005, 12:11 PM
er... excuse me, perhaps I'm missing something here and you actually meant: "has the dop contacted the teams involved before altering the rules of the competition?" :hmm:

Erm no. I mean there is no point in saying this here because the dop or the person who does the draw does not read this bulletin board.

arosar
15-07-2005, 12:12 PM
By the way Javier, is there any interesting gossip or controversy you can share with me? Please PM me and we will post in my new blog. We have no mods there. Just me.

Btw, the offer of sangria is standing. We are now regulars at the Spanish Club every Friday evening. See you there some time soon, we hope.

AR

arosar
15-07-2005, 12:13 PM
Erm no. I mean there is no point in saying this here because the dop or the person who does the draw does not read this bulletin board.

Err yes. Where have you been all this time?

AR

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 12:15 PM
I'm posting it here because I think the people who read this forum have the right to know what's going on, regardless of whom my team has contacted or not.
I thought that's what a forum was all about.

Trent Parker
15-07-2005, 12:17 PM
Err yes. Where have you been all this time?

AR Where have i been? I have nothing to do with doping the grade matches or setting the draw. If i was setting the draw i wouldn't have given fairfield U1400 team 3 away games in a row at Manly North Sydney and St. George.

Trent Parker
15-07-2005, 12:18 PM
I'm posting it here because I think the people who read this forum have the right to know what's going on, regardless of whom my team has contacted or not.
I thought that's a forum was all about.

This is a dispute is it not?

Section 11 of grade match rules states:
11. DISPUTES & APPEALS

Report any disputes which captains cannot settle to the director of play (grade match arbiter) in writing within 10 days.
Appeals against the director’s decision may then be made concerning:
The Laws of Chess - to the appeals committee, via the NSWCA or the DOP.
The Competition Rules - to the NSWCA.

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 12:26 PM
This is a dispute is it not?

Section 11 of grade match rules states:
11. DISPUTES & APPEALS

Report any disputes which captains cannot settle to the director of play (grade match arbiter) in writing within 10 days.
Appeals against the director’s decision may then be made concerning:
The Laws of Chess - to the appeals committee, via the NSWCA or the DOP.
The Competition Rules - to the NSWCA.

In 10 days the games would have been played already. And I simply wouldn't call this a dispute, but a direct breaking of the rules.
By the way, since you seem so well versed in the rules, which is the one that says that the DOP can change the pairings whenever he likes?

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 12:30 PM
The grade match booklet made it clear the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds of the open grade. If the rounds 8-10 shown in the booklet were sufficient there would not have been any reason for the booklet to state that the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds.

The arbiters aim was to ensure that the teams in the finals played in the opposite manner to the way they played in the prelims. e.g. Asquith played at home against St. George in the prelims so that meant that St. George played at home against Asquith in the finals.

The draw as shown ensures that all teams have played 5 home and 5 away matches and they evenues are the opposite to their preliminary matches. The only problem was it was discovered too late that the round 8 game Sydney Chess Academy V Canterbury should have been Canterbury V Sydney Chess Academy. Therefore the arbiter took the decision to have the match go ahead at Sydney Chess Academy but with it treated as a Canterbury home match as far as colours were concerned. There was no protest issued by Sydney Chess Academy regarding this and the match proceeded with Catnterbury being tretaed as the home side.

Sydney Chess Academy have lodged an offical protest saying the rounds should remain as shown by the numbers in the grade match booklet and the council will make a decision.
The Council will make a decision.

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 12:44 PM
Hola Javier! You did exactly the right thing by posting here.

Gracias.

AR
Should be an instruction on page 1 of Bill's training course for new Arbiters, right? :uhoh:

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 12:49 PM
The grade match booklet made it clear the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds of the open grade. If the rounds 8-10 shown in the booklet were sufficient there would not have been any reason for the booklet to state that the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds.

I believe the arbiter did publish the draw for the last 3 rounds, and obviously I don't have any objections to that. That's not what's being debated here, but the fact that those pairings were subsequently changed after the first round had already been played.



The draw as shown ensures that all teams have played 5 home and 5 away matches and they evenues are the opposite to their preliminary matches. The only problem was it was discovered too late that the round 8 game Sydney Chess Academy V Canterbury should have been Canterbury V Sydney Chess Academy. Therefore the arbiter took the decision to have the match go ahead at Sydney Chess Academy but with it treated as a Canterbury home match as far as colours were concerned. There was no protest issued by Sydney Chess Academy regarding this and the match proceeded with Catnterbury being tretaed as the home side.

Our team never requested that the draw be changed, he accepted it because he thought it was ok, although it did mean changing our preparation in the last minute. When accepting this change, our team captain was ASSURED that this would be the only change. It turns out that he was not told the truth.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 01:05 PM
I believe the arbiter did publish the rounds for the last 3 rounds, and obviously I don't have any objections to that. That's not what's being debated here, but the fact that those pairings were subsequently changed after the first round had already been published.I am informed by the person who updates the grade match web pages that the only published draw for rounds 9 and 10 showing the team names and dates on the grade match web pages are the ones you published above.


Our team never requested that the draw be changed, he accepted it because he thought it was ok, although it did mean changing our preparation in the last minute. When accepting this change, our team captain was ASSURED that this would be the only change. It turns out that he was not told the truth. This I cannot comment on as I have not spoken to the arbiter about it. However as far as I am aware at the time the decision was taken to change the colours for your match with canterbury the draw for the final rounds was as you published above.

As this matter is now before the Council I have no intention of commenting further until a decision is reached.

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 01:11 PM
The arbiters aim was to ensure that the teams in the finals played in the opposite manner to the way they played in the prelims.

Why then move our match against St. George from round 2 to the last round instead of simply changing who plays home? :hmm:

antichrist
15-07-2005, 01:13 PM
The grade match booklet made it clear the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds of the open grade. If the rounds 8-10 shown in the booklet were sufficient there would not have been any reason for the booklet to state that the arbiter would publish the draw for the final three rounds.

The arbiters aim was to ensure that the teams in the finals played in the opposite manner to the way they played in the prelims. e.g. Asquith played at home against St. George in the prelims so that meant that St. George played at home against Asquith in the finals.

The draw as shown ensures that all teams have played 5 home and 5 away matches and they evenues are the opposite to their preliminary matches. The only problem was it was discovered too late that the round 8 game Sydney Chess Academy V Canterbury should have been Canterbury V Sydney Chess Academy. Therefore the arbiter took the decision to have the match go ahead at Sydney Chess Academy but with it treated as a Canterbury home match as far as colours were concerned. There was no protest issued by Sydney Chess Academy regarding this and the match proceeded with Catnterbury being tretaed as the home side.

Sydney Chess Academy have lodged an offical protest saying the rounds should remain as shown by the numbers in the grade match booklet and the council will make a decision.
The Council will make a decision.

Could the changing of the colours have resulted in extra losses for the Academy? Was the switch at the last moment or days beforehand.

HAL
15-07-2005, 01:16 PM
We have no mods there. Just me.

So you are basically saying that as a system of government a dictatorship is a preferrable to an oligarchy. How do you justify that?

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 01:20 PM
Could the changing of the colours have resulted in extra losses for the Academy? Was the switch at the last moment or days beforehand.The switch in colours for the Sydney Chess Academy v Canterbury match occurred I believe the day of the match, however neither team protested the decision.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 01:29 PM
Why then move our match against St. George from round 2 to the last round instead of simply changing who plays home? :hmm:It was felt that having the top two placegetters from the prelim rounds should meet in the last round to maintain interest.

SCA are however protesting the changing of the draw from the simple numbers shown in the booklet to the full published draw showing dates and times. As such irrespective of when they play St. George they are arguing the match should be a St. George home match, even though the prelim match between them was also a St. George home match.

Other than to refute any wild speculations, this will be my last post on the matter until the Council reaches a decision.

arosar
15-07-2005, 01:38 PM
So you are basically saying that as a system of government a dictatorship is a preferrable to an oligarchy. How do you justify that?

Err no...

Now listen, I just received a post card from a WY participant. I am reliably informed the weed is everywhere in Holland. Fancy that! Have you smoked?

AR

Javier Gil
15-07-2005, 01:50 PM
It was felt that having the top two placegetters from the prelim rounds should meet in the last round to maintain interest.

Interesting information Bill. So, it wasn't just to correct the problem with the "colors". "killing 2 birds with one shot, hey?". The teams are just puppets.
I wonder what Canterbury and asquith will think about it... (the match between St George and Canterbury will apparently have no interest and SAC will have no problems with Asquith, is that right?).
This is truly pathetic.

Did any team actually request this or was the idea conceived originally by the arbiter? :hmm:

HAL
15-07-2005, 02:03 PM
Err no...

Now listen, I just received a post card from a WY participant. I am reliably informed the weed is everywhere in Holland. Fancy that! Have you smoked?

AR

You disappoint me. I thought you would have at least tried to pass yourself off as an enlightened despot - somewhat like my namesake. ;)

However, my original point was only half in jest. As blog author you hold 100% of the editorial control over the material on your site. On a forum like this all the members contribute and the editorial power is distributed among a small number of the membership and exercised post hoc.

You have mods and admins on your blog. The fact that they are all you is more of a problem, rather than less so. Of course, from your point of view, this is perceived as a benefit rather than a liability.

Should you wish to discuss further we should probably start a new thread but I can't promise to be too prompt in my replies without endangering my semi-retired status. ;)

regards, Barry

Paul S
15-07-2005, 02:23 PM
After having recent conversations with two Canterbury Open players (Fred Flatow and Henk Jens) and "Mr St George" Charles Zworestine, it is clear to me that the Open Division of the Grade Matches has become a farce. :rolleyes:

It is also grossly unfair to Canterbury. :mad: Yesterday I had a look at the draw for the last two rounds (which were only put on the NSWCA website late Wednesday night or early yesterday) and found that Canterbury play their last two games away. They also played away this week. So, this means that for the critical last 3 rounds (when the top 4 teams from the first 7 rounds all play each other), Canterbury plays their 3 matches away from home while all the other teams have two of these 3 games at home. How fair is that? :mad: Needless to say when I found out about this I sent an email to the NSWCA Council protesting against this discrimination against Canterbury and demanded that the draw for the last two rounds be changed immediately to be fair to Canterbury. If this is not done I expect Canterbury to be compenstaed by the NSWCA in some suitable way.

I believe that home ground does have an advantage (the home team players are more familiar with their own surroundings and as they have less distance to travel are therefore a bit fresher). I beleive that it is quite likely that Wednesday's result (2.5-1.5 to Sydney Chess Academy) may well have been 2-2 or 2.5-1.5 to Canterbury if it was played at Belmore. Regardless of which team wins this year (almost certainly either St George or Sydney Chess Academy) it will be a somewhat hollow victory due to Canterbury not being given a fair go. At the start of the finals series Canterbury was in a good position, only 1 point behind the leader St George and 0.5 point behing Sydney Chess Academy.

The above is not the only problem with the NSWCA's handling of this year's Open Division. As mentioned earlier, after speaking to Fred Flatow, Henk Jens and Charles Zworestine recently it is clear that the (supposedly prestigious) Open Division of the Grade Matches is a farce.

A few years ago Canterbury decided that it was playing in too many interclub competitions and decided that one of them should go in order to make way for a Club Championship. I had suggested the Grade Matches be the one to go, but after objections from Bob Keast and others we decided that Brian Jones' Western Suburbs comp would be the one to go. After the unfair treatment of Canterbury this year, the Canterbury committee will be giving serious consideration at its next meeting to playing in the Western Suburbs next year and NOT play in the Grade Matches (ie have its Club Championship at the same time as the Grade Matches). :mad:

arosar
15-07-2005, 03:26 PM
Did any team actually request this or was the idea conceived originally by the arbiter? :hmm:

That's a rhetorical question, right?

I'll give it a try. Uumm...St George?

AR

auriga
15-07-2005, 03:27 PM
The above is not the only problem with the NSWCA's handling of this year's Open Division. As mentioned earlier, after speaking to Fred Flatow, Henk Jens and Charles Zworestine recently it is clear that the (supposedly prestigious) Open Division of the Grade Matches is a farce.


what are the other problems (apart from finals mixup/changes)
with the open division making it a farce?

i can see the problem with final series. it should be pre-determined.
like the ARL, Super 12, NBA, (well all the competitions i can think of) etc.
in a 4-player teams competition i can't see how home/away and colours
can be a big factor but see it should be pre-determined before the season
begins so there is no comeback.

Paul S
15-07-2005, 04:43 PM
what are the other problems (apart from finals mixup/changes)
with the open division making it a farce?


1) The first thing anyone from Canterbury (in this case myself) knowing about the board colours having to be reversed for Wednesday's match against Sydney Chess Academy came 5 to 6 hours before the start of the match! Fortunately I was able to pass the message onto one of our Open players (Henk Jens) in time for the match.
2) On Wednesday evening Canterbury's captain Fred Flatow was informed that Canterbury's next match was against Asquith on Thursday 21/7/05 and so naturally he informed his players of this. Yesterday he had a chance phone call with Charles Zworestine who told him that Canterbury's next match would be against St George next Tuesday! As a result Fred asked me to go and travel to Ernest Puzon's place (which I will be doing tonight) and inform him of the changes (as Ernest does not have a telephone).
3) Over the course of 10 rounds Canterbury having less than 5 home games while Sydney Chess Academy has more than 5 home games. This situation was easily avoidable as after 7 rounds two of the 4 clubs had played 4 home games and the other two had played 3 home games - this means that there is NO reason why all four clubs could not have had 5 home and 5 away games by the end of 10 rounds.
4) I had requested to the NSWCA that Canterbury play at home for Round 9 as on the week of round 10 (25/7/05) Canterbury chess club would be moving temporarily to the Lakemba Services Club starting 25/7/05 (due to renovations at Canterbury Leagues). I had thought it best to avoid any possible "first night teething troubles" at Lakemba and so I suggested that Canterbury play away in round 10 (even though they CAN play at Lakemba for Round 10) and home in round 9. However, my request to play round 9 at Belmore was ignored by the NSWCA.
5) A couple of other things which I consider to be somewhat confidential (ie the person who told me them would not appreciate me posting them on here) so I will not mention them.
6) The revised round 9 and 10 draw being WORSE than what already existed in the Grade Matches booklet (viz round 8 1v4 and 2v3, round 9 4v3 and 1v2, round 10 2v4 and 3v1) - at least Canterbury got one home game with what was in the Grade Matches booklet - now Canterbury has NONE!


.................................in a 4-player teams competition i can't see how home/away and colours
can be a big factor.........................

In the Grade Matches I believe that playing at home is about a 0.5 to 1 point advantage, which in a tight competition can make a difference at the end of the day. Also there is the factor of convenience. Tell me, Method Man, if your Koala team was in this year's Grade Match Open Division final 4, would you prefer 2 of your 3 finals series games to be played at Riverstone or would you prefer none (as is the case with Canterbury this year) and have to travel away for all these 3 games?

I agree with you that the colours is not a big factor. However, I agree with Charles Zworestine (and others) that the board colours for when two teams play each other in the "final 4 series" should be the reverse of what they had when they played each other in the preliminary 7 rounds.

auriga
15-07-2005, 07:37 PM
yep, reading the sequence of events it does look like a bit of a mess.
looks like the draw shouldn't have been revised - especially at late notice.
guess have to wait for the council decision.

think i mentioned somewhere else but i think the regulation seasons and finals series
should be separate and points not carried forward.
this way everyone starts on even keel (and the bottom teams are elimated).
the finals series could be round robin or top team has home advantage.
this would avoid problem above.

arosar
15-07-2005, 10:20 PM
So this is another stuff up by the NSWCA is it? Why in the world must the clubs rely on the NSWCA? What would happen if a group of clubs suddenly started their own competition?

AR

arosar
15-07-2005, 10:40 PM
Just a quick reminder - for any good juicy info and gossip, gimme a holler. Of course, all facts and figures to be double checked - unlike my friend Matt Sweeney.

Blog updated.

AR

Brian_Jones
16-07-2005, 09:11 AM
It has been the custom in recent years that, when there are 8 teams entered in any division, they play a 7 week round robin followed by the top four teams contesting a three round robin play. In my view the rules of the play-off need to change.

There are too many problems with the current system in which points are carried forward (disadvantages slow starters) and a new draw is made over a single weekend (not enough time/too much controversy over home and away ratios/captains trying to play only when their best players are available).

I suggest that the Rugby Super 12 system is adopted in future years.

After 7 rounds, we have knockout semis and then a final. Semis are 1v4 and 2v3. The Final is between the winners of the two semi-finals with the home final going to the team that finished highest in the round-robin.

So the final would be either 1v2 or 1v3 or 2v4 or 3v4. Week 8 would be left empty. Semis would be played in week 9. Final in week 10.

No discretion by DOP or NSWCA Council or anybody!

Paul S
17-07-2005, 10:08 AM
So this is another stuff up by the NSWCA is it?

Yes.


Why in the world must the clubs rely on the NSWCA?

They don't.


What would happen if a group of clubs suddenly started their own competition?

The Grade Matches is the only interclub competition run by the NSWCA (the NSWCA's main focus is on weekend chess). Other interclub competitions like Western Suburbs, Combined Leagues Rapidplay, Interleagues, Big Boards etc are all run by other organisations.

Paul S
17-07-2005, 10:24 AM
It has been the custom in recent years that, when there are 8 teams entered in any division, they play a 7 week round robin followed by the top four teams contesting a three round robin play. In my view the rules of the play-off need to change.

There are too many problems with the current system in which points are carried forward (disadvantages slow starters) and a new draw is made over a single weekend (not enough time/too much controversy over home and away ratios/captains trying to play only when their best players are available).

I suggest that the Rugby Super 12 system is adopted in future years.

After 7 rounds, we have knockout semis and then a final. Semis are 1v4 and 2v3. The Final is between the winners of the two semi-finals with the home final going to the team that finished highest in the round-robin.

So the final would be either 1v2 or 1v3 or 2v4 or 3v4. Week 8 would be left empty. Semis would be played in week 9. Final in week 10.

No discretion by DOP or NSWCA Council or anybody!

Brian's proposal has considerable merit and deserves serious consideration. If Brian's idea ends up being adopted, I would suggest that in the event of a 2-2 draw in a semi-final or final that the team with the highest score in the preliminary 7 rounds is declared the winner.

However, I think having existing points carry over to the final 3 rounds and all 3 teams play each other is a fairer system provided it is done PROPERLY (which did not happen this year!). I guess its all very good to be wise after the event, but what SHOULD have happened is the following. I mention this so that this sort of shemozzle can be avoided in future years Grade matches (hopefully the NSWCA Council will take this on board!).
1) The final 3 rounds should have been played in weeks 9,10 and 11 (with a "rest week" in week 8). Immeadiately after round 7 a provisional draw should have been submitted to the organisers of the clubs involved allowing a couple of days for comment and feedback. After feedback, the final draw for the last 3 rounds should then have been done and the relevant clubs informed (and draw posted on NSWCA website) giving sufficient time for club captains to inform their players.
2) Each team to have EITHER one OR two of these last 3 games at their home venue and get all 4 teams to have had 5 home and 5 away games after 10 rounds if possible (which WAS easily achievable this year as after 7 rounds two teams had played 4 matches at home while the other two teams had played 3 matches at home).
3) While a minor thing, I agree with the point Charles Zworestine (I spoke to him the other day) made that the board colours for the final 3 matches should be the opposite of the board colours for when those teams played each other in rounds 1 to 7. Yet I don't see how this would prevent all 4 teams from having 5 home and 5 away games after 10 rounds - viz if need be just swap the board colours for a particular match.

Javier Gil
17-07-2005, 03:50 PM
...editing...

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2005, 07:46 PM
However, I think having existing points carry over to the final 3 rounds and all 3 teams play each other is a fairer system provided it is done PROPERLY (which did not happen this year!). I guess its all very good to be wise after the event, but what SHOULD have happened is the following. I mention this so that this sort of shemozzle can be avoided in future years Grade matches (hopefully the NSWCA Council will take this on board!).
1) The final 3 rounds should have been played in weeks 9,10 and 11 (with a "rest week" in week 8). Immeadiately after round 7 a provisional draw should have been submitted to the organisers of the clubs involved allowing a couple of days for comment and feedback. After feedback, the final draw for the last 3 rounds should then have been done and the relevant clubs informed (and draw posted on NSWCA website) giving sufficient time for club captains to inform their players.Yes, in future a one week break would be desireable.

2) Each team to have EITHER one OR two of these last 3 games at their home venue and get all 4 teams to have had 5 home and 5 away games after 10 rounds if possible (which WAS easily achievable this year as after 7 rounds two teams had played 4 matches at home while the other two teams had played 3 matches at home).That logic is flawed as the home/away games depends entirely on which 4 teams make the finals. I will explain why below.

3) While a minor thing, I agree with the point Charles Zworestine (I spoke to him the other day) made that the board colours for the final 3 matches should be the opposite of the board colours for when those teams played each other in rounds 1 to 7. Yet I don't see how this would prevent all 4 teams from having 5 home and 5 away games after 10 rounds - viz if need be just swap the board colours for a particular match.Actually that is not what Charles said at all, but simply a consequence of what he said.
Charles said that the pairings in the final should be the opposite of what they were in the preliminaries which is the way it has occurred in the past. i.e. if St. George played at home against Canterbury in the the first 7 rounds then it should be Cantebury at home against St. George in the final. It is simply a consequence of this home/away aspect that swaps the colours.
Thus it is entirely possible for a team to have 3 away matches in the finals if that team had played the other 3 finalists at home in rounds 1 to 7 or 3 home matches if they had played the other 3 teams away during rounds 1 to 7. e.g if in the current open competition St. George in round 4 had played at home against Asquith then Asquith would have played the other 3 finalists all as away matches during rounds 1 to 7. As such Asquith are the home team against the 3 other teams in the final 3 rounds.

Also it should be noted that a 5-5 split of home and away for all teams in not necessarily possible under this scheme. e.g. assume that the North Sydney Grizzlies had qualified for the finals instead of Asquith. In this case Canterbury would have had 4 home matches, Sydney Chess Academy 4 home matches and the North Sydney Grizzlies 4 home matches in rounds 1 to 7 whilst St. George only had 3 home matches in rounds 1 to 7. Therefore after swapping the home and away fixtures for those 4 teams in the finals, Canterbury would have 1 home match in the finals against Sydney Chess Academy, Sydney Chess Academy would have 2 home matches in the finals against St. George and the North Sydney Grizzlies, The North Sydney Grizzlies would have 2 home matches in the finals against St. George and Canterbury and St. George would have 1 home match in the finals against Canterbury.
This gives a total over the 10 rounds of the Nothe Sydney grizzlies having 6 home matches, Sydney Chess Academy having 6 home matches, canterbury having 5 home matches and St. George having only 4 home matches. There is no way to end up with a 5/5 split for all 4 teams. In fact you cannot even get a 5/5 split for 3 of the teams as then St. George would meet either the North Sydney Grizzlies or Sydney Chess Academy at home in both their matches played over the 10 rounds.

These points do not however invalidate the concept of teams playing the opposite of what they played in the preliminary rounds as by playing in such a manner the teams in the finals have effectively played a double round robin amongst themselves.

Kerry Stead
17-07-2005, 07:53 PM
It has been the custom in recent years that, when there are 8 teams entered in any division, they play a 7 week round robin followed by the top four teams contesting a three round robin play. In my view the rules of the play-off need to change.

There are too many problems with the current system in which points are carried forward (disadvantages slow starters) and a new draw is made over a single weekend (not enough time/too much controversy over home and away ratios/captains trying to play only when their best players are available).

I suggest that the Rugby Super 12 system is adopted in future years.

After 7 rounds, we have knockout semis and then a final. Semis are 1v4 and 2v3. The Final is between the winners of the two semi-finals with the home final going to the team that finished highest in the round-robin.

So the final would be either 1v2 or 1v3 or 2v4 or 3v4. Week 8 would be left empty. Semis would be played in week 9. Final in week 10.

No discretion by DOP or NSWCA Council or anybody!

Brian, although I often think you have good ideas, I don't think this is one of them. Chess is not like Super 12 Rugby ... its a round robin comp, so the idea that you have 'slow starters' seems silly - everyone plays everyone anyway.
What happens if a team has been dominating the competition, and something happens in a final round - say they're travelling to a venue as a team and their car breaks down, so they lose on forfeit ...
As for the idea of discretion, do you as a player ordinarily have any say in the pairings in a tournament? Does the DOP HAVE to go with what Swiss Perfect (or any other pairing program) says? No ... the DOP has some discretion (within reason) ...

PHAT
18-07-2005, 06:08 AM
Of course, all facts and figures to be double checked - unlike my friend Matt Sweeney.


My motto when it comes to non-critical gossip is, don't check it at all. :cool:

Brian_Jones
18-07-2005, 09:33 AM
Brian, although I often think you have good ideas, I don't think this is one of them. Chess is not like Super 12 Rugby ... its a round robin comp, so the idea that you have 'slow starters' seems silly - everyone plays everyone anyway.

But the Rugby is a round robin also. And teams vary from week to week according to the availability of players. At Rooty Hill we could not field a fourth 2000+ player for the first few matches - so we started very slowly.
This raises an interesting topic of allowing games to be played in advance. I have always considered that teams should play the best players available on the day. It is not fair to rearrange games simply to accomodate one player. It is a team competition and all games should be played together on the one night!


What happens if a team has been dominating the competition, and something happens in a final round

Like the opposing team fields its best players for the first time? The dominating team would then lose to a better team on the night!

Trent Parker
18-07-2005, 09:38 AM
Quoting arosar's Blog:

At first, the NSWCA's PR man, Trent Parker, attempted a quick hose-down and trying to embarass the International Master. He failed.

All I asked was:

Have you contacted the dop before you have post this here?

All he had to say is that a protest had been lodged with the DOP and i would have been happy. I guess i was in a bit of an argumentative mood though..... :uhoh:

I did not intend on embarrassing anybody.

Libby
18-07-2005, 09:59 AM
This again makes me wonder why chess considers itself so unique and different to other sport.

Brian's idea seems quite sensible to me although there are many ways in which such an event could run a finals series. What was that McIntyre (?) system that the AFL ran with and had the average punter scratching his head over?

Any team sport experiences difficulties with player availability etc. Some of us have lost Grand Finals (when leading ALL SEASON) because a star shooter was unavailable on a given night, or injured or caught in a traffic jam. It just happens. One of my players broke her nose in a netball final. Watch even an AFL final turn when someone is stretchered off in the first quarter.

I have had my recent headaches with the organisation of a secondary school playoff series (in chess) with players opting out at the last minute or not really being sure they want to participate. They had over 4 weeks notice with the draw and we were still mucked about on the Saturday morning of competition.

Chess players (in my view) are not often enough forced to make the decision to put their game first for that day, or that evening, or that weekend - in a way that everyone else has to when they do not get to dictate the draw or time for their final or selection trial or competition.

If playing conditions and dates are set well in advance and widely advertised then the onus is on players to be available, to play under those conditions and to raise any concerns with the Council before such conditions & dates are set for the next year of competition.

Discretion doesn't rear it's head in too many other sports & activities. Most are based on round robin formats, and not swiss pairings (obviously) but I have played in competitions where double round-robins were not possible and where teams may enter the finals series (or be eliminated from it) courtesy of a tougher draw than others. Tough tomales. Better luck next time.

In most sport you play on the day scheduled or not at all. It's up to you to be available and if one of your players can't make it - maybe you can get a good replacement and maybe you can't. Maybe it does cost you the match but there's always next time.

Perhaps finals can be held simultaneously at a central, neutral location, selected for the convenience of your arbiter, organiser and possible spectators? This would not be unlike other sports where home ground advantage in finals is often sidelined for spectator & administrative convenience.

Javier Gil
18-07-2005, 10:30 AM
Yes, I agree that the system can be improved, and having a knock out final where the team that did better in the first stage wins the match if there's a 2:2 tie is a very good system indeed.
But getting back to what has happened, we have to draw the line somewhere as to what can be and what can't be done.

* I think most teams are quite reasonable when it comes to changing the colors of the draw, I believe this is quite reasonable. We can keep talking about it, but this is nothing compared to the real issue, changing round 2 to round 3.

* Changing the official pairings from one round to another (claiming that it would add more interest to the competition) is something completely different and unacceptable for different reasons:

1- Although I don't think playing home is equivalent to a 1 point advantage, I do agree that playing home is an advantage for the home team, it is a lot more convenient, mainly because of the amount of time you invest travelling from one place to another.
The people who decided this didn't seem to take into account that Canterbury would be playing away the 3 rounds, which is simply ridiculous, because they can think abstractly about the "interest" of the competition, but can't see what's in front of their noses. Very odd indeed.

2- Ian Rogers didn't play the first game of the finals and it is publicly known that he won't play any other games. Zong didn't play the first game of the finals either, and I don't know if he'll play the second game, I heard it was unlikely because he's not in Sydney.
Can you honestly say that St. George is a stronger team under those circumstances? In my opinion, no, not at all. Thus, the manipulation of the draw without the teams consent claiming that it maintains the interest is very hard to believe and an insult to the rest of the teams that are taking part in the competition: mathematically, any team can still win the event. You're not big brother and you can't toy with the rules like that. It destroys the competition.

3- To this day, I don't know if any team requested (or suggested...) 1/ to change who would be playing home, 2/ to change the pairings so that St. George would be playing SAC in the last round.
But if Zong is not in Sydney this week, and if Igor goes back to Melbourne next week, then you wouldn't have to be very smart to realize that a "little change" can actually make a huge difference in the competition. (St. George, probably without Zong, would play against SAC in round two, and SAC could get Asquith without Boris in round 3 if the pairings hadn't been manipulated)
If a) the comittee doesn't change the decission, b) if no teams withdraw the competition, c) if St. George lines up a stronger field in the last round than it does against Canterbury, and d) if Igor doesn't play the last round for Asquith, then you'll have to admit that it's going to look rather suspicious. And no, I'm not pointing my finger at St. George, but I'm a simple minded person, I'm very naïf and I expect things to happen according to the rules that were published.
Can you say that I'm a fool for expecting so much? I guess you can.
If these rules are suddenly changed without taking into account the opinion of the teams (something which shows how much you respect the competition and the people involved in it), and these rules are changed for reasons that simply don't make very much sense (or a lot of sense!), then you have to start thinking about other reasons...

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2005, 10:48 AM
The NSWCA Council has rejected the protest by Brett Tindall and confirmed that the following draw as currently published on the web site will stand.

Round 9
Tuesday July 19
St George vs Canterbury
Thursday July 21
Asquith Leagues Club vs Sydney Chess Academy

Round 10
Wednesday July 27
Sydney Chess Academy vs St George
Thursday July 28
Asquith Leagues Club vs Canterbury

Thunderspirit
18-07-2005, 12:48 PM
During my 5 years in Sydney the Grade Matches were by far the most enjoyable event that I played in, run directly by the NSWCA, though the changing of the pairings concerns me greatly.

Those people, who know me well, know I love St George and am passionate about grade matches. I concede I've taken the event too seriously over the years. This post isn't just an opportunity to pledge my loyalty to St George, that has no constructive outcome, but an opportunity to express my disappointment in changing the pairings. They're have been quite a few players who have expressed there concern over the pairings, such as IM Javier Gil, FM Brett Tindall and Paul Sike and though they play for rival teams, I have to agree with their concerns. Pairings should only be changed if they are fundamentally flawed, which doesn't seem to be the case in this situation.

If players are to trust their arbiters than the pairings and their integrity must be absolute. There are obvious concerns when regarding preparation and the availability of players, which is probably the greater concern here. St George is obviously a much stronger team when GM Ian Rogers plays. (St George is very lucky to have his services.) I don’t speak for those who play Open Grade for St George, but I’m sure they would agree that the team doesn’t need any favours when regards to the pairings as have been suggested by some on this site. St George should win each year regardless of what the pairings are, and how they are created. (Okay… I concede this is probably a little arrogant, but I’ll have to live with that…)

I wasn’t going to comment on this point, until my good mate WIM Laura Moylan, who less than happy with the situation created by the change of pairings, contacted me over the weekend.

It seems the strange decisions regarding the event are common. I still don’t understand how the association can ban foreign players, from playing in the event. A justification of this is the “NSW Grade Matches” and not the “World teams” is not satisfactory in my opinion. (Bill, you do great work for Australian Chess, work that I would never attempt, but some of the decisions you made over the years have been a little strange….)

The association has made it’s decision, so I know this will have no consequence in changing anything, though as an act of solidarity with those other players who have expressed concern here I felt that I should add my concerns and support the cause.

All we can do now, is watch what happens. Best of luck to all the teams in the last few rounds of the event. I would hope that such errors wouldn’t be made in the future, though I am not naïve to believe that will actually happen.

Post Script: While I have talked about the intergrity of the pairings, I wish to make it 100% clear to everyone that I am not questioning Bill's intergrity. While I concede my own writing sytle needs some work, people tend to be misrepresented here on the site.

Bill does two of the most thankless jobs in Australian chess (Ratings Officer & NSWCA President) and deserves much thanks even if I disagree with some of his decsions. Sorry Bill, if you thought that I meant something other than I did....

Andrew Bird
19-07-2005, 12:07 AM
The thing that makes this really upsetting is that what has happened makes it look like the draw was deliberately changed to help St George. I really hope this is not the case, but it would be nice if someone could explain why not.

The following is what I understand and have heard to be the case. If any of this is not correct, please let me know.


St George and Sydney Chess Academy are tied for first on 21 points with two rounds to play.
The Grade match booklet had the draw for the first 7 rounds spelling out the team names and then the final 3 round as numbers according to the teams placing in the Preliminaries i.e. Round 8: 1 v 4, 2 v 3
Round 8 went ahead as per the draw in the booklet, except the colours where reversed in the Sydney Academy v Canterbury match as a way to even the home/away colour split. We accepted this change to make the draw fairer with out changing who plays who when.
When informed of the reversing of the colours by Steve Carratt a few hours before the game on Wednesday 13th, our team captain asked if this was the only change to the draw and was assured yes.
The draw published in the Grade match booklet before the start of the comp had St George v Sydney Academy this week, and Sydney Chess Academy v Asquith Leagues Club next week.
St George’s top player GM Ian Rogers is oversees and will not play any more games. Their no.2 IM Zong-Yuan Zhao is in Coffs Harbour and will not return until the end of the week. So he will not be available for this week’s game but will be for next weeks.
Asquith’s no.1 player Igor Bjelobrk is available this week but won’t be in Sydney next week.
Charles Zworestine, captain of the St George team, came up with a new draw putting Asquith Leagues Club vs. Sydney Academy this week and Sydney Academy v St George in the final week. He gave his suggested draw to the Grade Match arbiter, which was accepted with out consulting any of the other teams.
Instead of playing St George when they don’t have Zhao, and Asquith when they don’t have Bjelobrk, we now play those teams when those players are playing.
So instead of having a non-IM on board 1 with black against there main opposition, St George will now have Zong-Yuan Zhao with the white pieces on b.1 against us.


So I hope you can see why this might look like the draw was changed specifically to help St George. Even if Charles was not trying to be bias in any way, it seems unbelievable the council could accept amendments to the draw from the captain of one team without consulting the other teams. Since we will now be playing the two final rounds when our opposing teams have much stronger players available, I think its obvious the change in the draw is likely to have a major impact on the final results.

I know its tough if one of your best players is not available, but it happens to everyone sometimes- our b.1 Javier Gil was not available for some of the rounds- but it would be extremely unsporting to change the draw just to make sure a particular team has to face particular opposition. As I said, I really hope that is not the case here, and that the changes where made in good faith. But even if that is the case it at very least looks extremely irresponsible to change the draw at the last moment in a way which disadvantages one team at the suggestion of the captain of the team who is set to benefit.

I have a lot of respect for Charles Zworestine, Bill Gletsos, and all of the people on the council, and I hope and believe it wasn’t anyone’s intention to rig the draw, but I hope they realise they are leaving themselves open to that interpretation, and that in the interest of fair play the draw needs to stand as originally published.

Andrew Bird
19-07-2005, 12:20 AM
The NSWCA Council has rejected our appeal and wants to continue with the revised draw. We are not happy with the appeal process and want a proper appeal to be heard or we are withdrawing from the competition. If we have a proper appeal we will accept its decision and play whatever the outcome.

Two things I would have thought where obviously necessary for an appeal is that it is judged by someone different than the person/group who made the original decision, and that both sides be allowed to present their case. Nether was the case here. The NSWCA Council jugged the appeal itself. If you went to court and then wanted to appeal, of course you would not then go up in front of the same judge again to ask then to overrule there own decision. Our club captain, Brett Tindall, sent Bill Gletsos an email stating he wanted to appeal, but not explaining our case in detail, and then started writing a letter explaining everything, expecting to then be told who was running the appeal so he could present our case to them. But he was sent back an email saying ‘protest noted’ and then told the protest was rejected. Of course he should have had a chance to communicate directly with everyone on the council. Instead it seems Gletsos contacted council members himself, presumably putting forward his own point of view, and asked them if they wanted to overrule their own decision. Of course the answer was no. There could hardly be any other result in this situation.

What we want is a three person appeals committee made up of independent people (not on the council or a member of one of the clubs involved.) who can hear both sides of the story and make a decision. If this is done before Tuesday night (when we where ment to play St George) we will play whichever decision is made. There are several IA’s in Sydney who are not involved and would be the obvious people to ask. They could discuss this via phone or email tomorrow and everything could go ahead.

antichrist
19-07-2005, 01:12 AM
The NSWCA Council has rejected our appeal and wants to continue with the revised draw. We are not happy with the appeal process and want a proper appeal to be heard or we are withdrawing from the competition. If we have a proper appeal we will accept its decision and play whatever the outcome.

Two things I would have thought where obviously necessary for an appeal is that it is judged by someone different than the person/group who made the original decision, and that both sides be allowed to present their case. Nether was the case here. The NSWCA Council jugged the appeal itself. If you went to court and then wanted to appeal, of course you would not then go up in front of the same judge again to ask then to overrule there own decision. Our club captain, Brett Tindall, sent Bill Gletsos an email stating he wanted to appeal, but not explaining our case in detail, and then started writing a letter explaining everything, expecting to then be told who was running the appeal so he could present our case to them. But he was sent back an email saying ‘protest noted’ and then told the protest was rejected. Of course he should have had a chance to communicate directly with everyone on the council. Instead it seems Gletsos contacted council members himself, presumably putting forward his own point of view, and asked them if they wanted to overrule their own decision. Of course the answer was no. There could hardly be any other result in this situation.

What we want is a three person appeals committee made up of independent people (not on the council or a member of one of the clubs involved.) who can hear both sides of the story and make a decision. If this is done before Tuesday night (when we where ment to play St George) we will play whichever decision is made. There are several IA’s in Sydney who are not involved and would be the obvious people to ask. They could discuss this via phone or email tomorrow and everything could go ahead.

Andrew, I am all with you for more rights for members, especially for being able to personally put their case to council or committees. Without such transparentcy we can justly imagine the worse scenario, only to be contradicted by Bill without knowing for sure what the situation was.

We could have a members' advocate to help less articulate members put their case.

Libby
19-07-2005, 07:09 AM
Without casting any aspersions on the integrity of those involved I don't think "discretion" should be exercised by anyone who could be perceived to have an interest in the outcome.

Trent Parker
19-07-2005, 07:47 AM
It is clear that there is a problem with the Open division.

Would Sydney Academy of chess withdraw their threat of withdrawing with the pomise of the NSWCA discussing the grade matches before they start next year with the clubs and making changes suggested by the clubs?

arosar
19-07-2005, 08:08 AM
There seems to be several issues here: (i) NSWCA stuff up with draws (ii) poor appeals process (iii) perceived meddling by Dr Z.

Look, I have known Charles for some years. I believe him to be an highly ethical person. He wouldn't do anything to "fix up" the pairings to favour his team. He made one suggestion. That's it! The ultimate decision to act upon that suggestion lay squarely with the NSWCA. And herein lies the problem. The NSWCA are beset with such paralysis that they cannot communicate correctly. As a result of this, perfectly innocent people like Dr Z are tarred. For another example of poor communications, just look at what happened in the appeal process. A joke!

If you're going to set your sights on anyone, set it against the NSWCA.

I call upon the good folk of all clubs to join St George in a rival competition. Don't be bullied by this NSWCA mob. Rise up and dictate your own destiny.

AR

Javier Gil
19-07-2005, 08:25 AM
Would Sydney Academy of chess withdraw their threat of withdrawing with the pomise of the NSWCA discussing the grade matches before they start next year with the clubs and making changes suggested by the clubs?

Frankly, at a moment like this when there are so many people hoping for there to be some kind of solution involving common sense and justice, I don't think you have chosen the right moment for a joke. :evil:

Trent Parker
19-07-2005, 09:10 AM
Frankly, at a moment like this when there are so many people hoping for there to be some kind of solution involving common sense and justice, I don't think you have chosen the right moment for a joke. :evil:

Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!!

I was hoping that rather than dwell on the situation as it stands we should look to the future to make the grade matches better for the future. The NSWCA Council have voted and are not changing the draw (and i'll just comment here that i did not vote. My vote would not have made any difference with the majority of the council voting to keep the draw.)

In actual fact i agree that the grade match book could have been perceived to give the draw for the final rounds.

Trent Parker

antichrist
19-07-2005, 09:59 AM
What the bottom line here is that everyone deserves their day in court and this did not happen, and is not guaranteed to happen until the NSWCA constitution is changed to reflect that. So Sydney Academy either put up an approp motion at the AGM or cop second best treatment.

There are other important issues upon which members deserve their day in court so such a change would be universal and prevent further misunderstandings and dysfunctionalism.

Andrew Bird
19-07-2005, 11:03 AM
In actual fact i agree that the grade match book could have been perceived to give the draw for the final rounds.

Trent Parker

It does give the draw for the final rounds. The only argument is if the statement that the Arbiter will ‘publish’ the draw at the end of round 7 means change the draw.

Here is exactly what it says in the Grade match booklet published before the event started:

Rounds 8-10
The top 4 teams will play a three game Round Robin to determine the final standings. The grade match Arbiter will publish the draw at the end of Round 7

Round 8: 1 v 4, 2 v 3 Round 9: 4 v 3, 1 v 2 Round 10: 2 v 4, 3 v 1

The draw for the earlier rounds is all written with the team names i.e. Canterbury vs. Parramatta. The way we all interpreted the ‘publish’ comment is that the Arbiter will simply put the team names up on the web. We have spoken to the other teams and both Canterbury and Asquith believed the same. ‘publish’ seems like a strange word if you mean ‘make’ or ‘change’. If there is a draw already there in ink of course people are going to think it is the draw. If the number draw was not intended to be used, why was it in the booklet at all??

Even if you accept this means that the arbiter will make a new draw and the draw in the booklet is meaningless, the fact is the arbiter did not publish the draw at the end of round 7. Round 8 went ahead according to the number draw in the booklet. Then a change was announced for rounds 8 and 9. There is no way I can accept the statement “The grade match Arbiter will publish the draw at the end of Round 7” means he can change the draw at any time.

Javier Gil
19-07-2005, 11:21 AM
I believe a player from St. George has confirmed that Charles actually got together with some members of the St. George team and worked out what was the "best draw" for them.
This doesn't mean that he actually told Bill or anyone in the NSWCA about it, but I can´t help thinking about this: Why would he try to work out what the best draw for his insterests was if he "knew" that the draw couldn't be legally changed? to make everyone feel sick for their bad luck? very odd, isn't it? :hmm:
I don't think other teams got together with such an objective because I don't think it ever crossed our minds that the draw could be changed.

Trent Parker
19-07-2005, 11:24 AM
anyhow i have made a comment on my New Blog. Anyone is free to comment but i would prefer if anyone from here does post a comment let me know who you are. Even if it is just initials.....

http://thechessnut.blogspot.com/

By the way.... these are my comments and my comments only.

DoroPhil
19-07-2005, 11:32 AM
What's the deal with the NSW grade matches anyway? Why so much controversy? Is that because significant prizes are on offer?

Trent Parker
19-07-2005, 11:35 AM
....Not that i can remember...... :uhoh:

ursogr8
19-07-2005, 12:04 PM
What's the deal with the NSW grade matches anyway? Why so much controversy? Is that because significant prizes are on offer?

hi Phil

Could it be the 'competitive juices' at play?
Remember, Ascaro recently posted >

.................,its a long way from interclub in the 80`s i remember the old vca in elisabeth st,man that was amazing to see rogers,johansen,jameison,west,solomon,hamilton,smi th,jordan,barber,hjorth
prods to name a few.
Let us not forget that the myriad of (VIC) interclub rules written by GW were often as a consequence of controversy, just as we are seeing in these Grade matches in NSWCA.
Not all the 'good' moves have to be played at the board, you know. ;)

starter

Kerry Stead
19-07-2005, 01:58 PM
Some observations on this matter ...
Firstly, yes, I am on the NSWCA council, and yes, I play for St George in a lower division ... and these observations are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of the NSWCA council, St George chess club or anyone else.

It seems that a problem has developed here for a number of resaons:
1 - A number of people involved are competitive
2 - There have been assumptions made by a number of parties
3 - 'Rules' have been questioned where they may or may not exist
4 - There is some potential animosity between some parties involved

To start, might I suggest a valid interpretation of the 'published draw' ... the 1v4, 2v3 etc are pairing numbers (after all the final stage of the competition is a round robin) ... pairing numbers being: Sydney Academy 1; Asquith 2; St George 3; Canterbury 4; There would therefore be a need to publish a draw, as the booklet is indicative that the finals are a round robin and nothing more. It has been assumed that the numbers refer to placings in the preliminary rounds, but that is not necessarily the case.

The theory that St George have been the only team that have 'schemed' (my term based on correspondence I have seen) about the final series is obviously untrue, as one of the main points of the SAC protest is that apparently Zhao is only available for St George for round 10 & Bjelobrk is only available for Asquith for round 9. Obviously the SAC team have at least asked about player availability, or assumed it, and then come to the conclusion that it would be favourable for them to play St George in round 9 and Asquith in round 10.

The issue of colours has been raised, but seems a minor one, and one that was not protested when the coulours for the SAC v Canterbury game were changed from what they would have been according to the players' interpretation of the draw.

There has been the suggestion that once the draw is 'published' that it can not be changed. I must admit that I have only had a brief look on the FIDE web page, but if such a law exists, I have not been able to find it. Although it may be convention for some tournaments in Australia, there is also the convention that the draw is 'provisional' until some designated time before the round, to allow for things such as players becoming ill overnight and allowing all players to have a game rather than having 2 people who effectively have byes for a round.

There has also been some suggestion that the NSWCA should either not be able to hear the appeal, or are somehow unable to render a fair decision. The competition rules state that appeals based on the rules of the competition should be heard by the NSWCA, so I can not see that this is a problem. If the council is percieved as somehow incompetent, then that is simply the result of the AGM - after all the council positions are voted on by members.

Some of the current rules have come about as a result of issues from previous years, such as the requirement to nominate players and for them to be permanent residents of NSW.

As for prizes, its a chess clock for the winning club, medallions for players & board prizes (books from memory) for players scoring 70%+ having played at least 70% of possible games.

The above is not intended to be any kind of judgement on the parties concerned, but simply a way to understand the issues in something other than a black/white right/wrong dichotomy.

At the end of the day, regardless of what happens, it is a CHESS tournament, and should be decided by who plays the best on the board, not what happens off the board.

Brian_Jones
19-07-2005, 02:40 PM
Now is the time to declare the winner for 2005. It is.....a tie between North Sydney Grizzlies and Parramatta. They both got the least number of points and behaved in a sporting manner at all times.

auriga
19-07-2005, 08:06 PM
There has been the suggestion that once the draw is 'published' that it can not be changed. I must admit that I have only had a brief look on the FIDE web page, but if such a law exists, I have not been able to find it. Although it may be convention for some tournaments in Australia, there is also the convention that the draw is 'provisional' until some designated time before the round, to allow for things such as players becoming ill overnight and allowing all players to have a game rather than having 2 people who effectively have byes for a round.


isn't the rule below the one with official pairing, etc.
i've always assumed this is in place most tournaments i play in.
otherwise, we'd have riots right?! (players spending hours preparing and then find that it's changed, etc.)

F.6 A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2).

to chip in my suggestion re the open finals,
i think we should annul the current finals series
and bring back the 4 teams knocked out into 1 big weekend decider!

Kerry Stead
19-07-2005, 08:36 PM
isn't the rule below the one with official pairing, etc.
i've always assumed this is in place most tournaments i play in.
otherwise, we'd have riots right?! (players spending hours preparing and then find that it's changed, etc.)

F.6 A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2).

to chip in my suggestion re the open finals,
i think we should annul the current finals series
and bring back the 4 teams knocked out into 1 big weekend decider!

The section you quote is from the SWISS PAIRING rules ... but the grade matches is not paired according to the Swiss system ... its a round robin.

It applies in most tournaments, as most are based on the Swiss system, but this is not one of them.

antichrist
19-07-2005, 10:01 PM
The section you quote is from the SWISS PAIRING rules ... but the grade matches is not paired according to the Swiss system ... its a round robin.

It applies in most tournaments, as most are based on the Swiss system, but this is not one of them.

It may not be one of them but his objection still holds up. i.e.,
players spending hours preparing and then find that it's changed, etc.. which was my original point.

But as no one objected on the day maybe no one had prepared, or if they were playing their favourite colour they thought they had no need to prepare.

Bereaved
19-07-2005, 10:12 PM
Hello everybody,

I had understood that a published draw was only to be changed if it violated the Fide laws, but given that they in the main deal with Swiss tournaments, perhaps even in specific, but it does seem to be a poor degree of forethought displayed in the changes however it was decided.

I do know that other major events in the South here have had changes of draw as shortly as 5 minutes before that round was to commence, owing to a protest about 2 colours in a row amongst other issues.

That wass an extreme case of incredibly short notice, but in this given discussion, I had thought that I had read earlier that one of the reasons for the changes was to pair the top two teams together in the final round of the finals series to make it "More" exciting...how is it perceived that this will make it more exciting, and for who?

Even if such a change was to make for a potential spectator's enjoyment ( as this seems to be somewhat the main of the arguement ) how is that the players are to become more excited by being thrown off balance midway through.

I've read that the appeal was turned down, however not the grounds for that, and have still in my mind yet to see a good reason as to why the changes were even considered? NB the reason as provided at the current moment is not to my mind a good one...but that is a personal preference.

Would be delighted to hear from either a) the party that decided to change the draw or b) those who turned down the appeal?

take care and God Bless, Macavity

bergil
20-07-2005, 02:27 PM
What a storm in a tea cup, SAC should withdraw and go sulk in a corner and let the other play in peace.

They huff and puff about withdrawing but are really stalling to hear the result of the game between STGeorge vs Canterbury, if Saints win they withdraw, if Canterbury wins they stay in.

Just wait and see, SAC will either say they are poor victims or Winners over adversity. Go sell that crap to the fox network, we don't need it.

arosar
20-07-2005, 02:29 PM
take care and God Bless, Macavity

Hey Mac, mate. You seem to have a lot to say. What do you have to say about this little brewing controversy in Mexico over poaching?

See my blog.

AR

arosar
20-07-2005, 02:30 PM
What a storm in a tea cup...

Mate, how long have you been in chess circles?

Now listen, can I talk to you privately about some goings on at the Fairfield chess? PMs then?

AR

Brian_Jones
20-07-2005, 04:30 PM
What a storm in a tea cup, SAC should withdraw and go sulk in a corner and let the other play in peace.

They huff and puff about withdrawing but are really stalling to hear the result of the game between STGeorge vs Canterbury, if Saints win they withdraw, if Canterbury wins they stay in.

Just wait and see, SAC will either say they are poor victims or Winners over adversity. Go sell that crap to the fox network, we don't need it.

Bergil. You trying to get an invite to join SAC as your new club, mate?

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 09:12 PM
Sydney Chess Academy has withdrawn from the Grade Matches. Today our request for our appeal to be heard be an independent committee was rejected be the NSWCA council. Since we find the changes made to the draw, and the way it was done, unacceptable, we no longer want to be part of this competition.

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 09:22 PM
Here is the response to our appeal we received from the NSWCA today:

Dear Laura,

We refer to your email dated 18 July 2005 and advise that the position has not changed and your request for an appeals committee has been rejected. The appeal had been rejected by Council and their view is that appeals should not be ongoing because of unfavourable decisions. The Grade Match booklet is clear that the rules regarding competition are the responsibility of the NSWCA Council.

Accordingly, the games scheduled for tonight will proceed.

We might add that whilst Peter Cassettari is the Grade Match Arbiter and Bill Gletsos is President, all emails are circulated to all Council members, so that they are informed and can arrive at independent decisions on matters with no undue influence of any other Council Member.

We are sorry that you may stand by your decision to withdraw from the competition, but the Council has made its considered fair and reasonable decision taking all matters into account. A withdrawal from the competition would be an unauthorised withdrawal and may be subject to disciplinary action by the Council. Should you decide to stay in the competition, we wish you best of luck for the remaining games.

Yours sincerely,
NSW Chess Association Inc.

Tom Accola
Secretary

firegoat7
20-07-2005, 09:25 PM
Damn straight, if Laura is right.....



Hahahahahahahah Gletsos Hahahahahahhhahhaha Gletsos Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Gletsos you crack me up!! Gilligan where are you?

Cheers Fg7

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 09:28 PM
What a storm in a tea cup, SAC should withdraw and go sulk in a corner and let the other play in peace.

They huff and puff about withdrawing but are really stalling to hear the result of the game between STGeorge vs Canterbury, if Saints win they withdraw, if Canterbury wins they stay in.

Just wait and see, SAC will either say they are poor victims or Winners over adversity. Go sell that crap to the fox network, we don't need it.

Rubbish. We where waiting to here the result of our request for a fair appeal. When we received the email from the NSWCA council today, we decided to withdraw. None of us know the result of the St.George vs. Canterbury match yet.

arosar
20-07-2005, 09:41 PM
Andrew -

Are you able to grant me exclusivity on some aspects of this issue? May I remind you that Bill is a mod on here. He is a definite threat to your cause on this board. Just as there was a perception of bias in the appeals process, there is equally that perception here insofar as his moderation of this board is concerned.

Any moment now his mod mates will pipe in. Let us prepare for war. My blog is at your service.

AR

Garvinator
20-07-2005, 09:41 PM
Gilligan where are you?

Cheers Fg7
do you mean me?

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 10:02 PM
Andrew -

Are you able to grant me exclusivity on some aspects of this issue?

If there’s anything to be exclusive about but we just want everything out in the open so everyone knows everything that has happened.



May I remind you that Bill is a mod on here. He is a definite threat to your cause on this board. Just as there was a perception of bias in the appeals process, there is equally that perception here insofar as his moderation of this board is concerned.

Any moment now his mod mates will pipe in. Let us prepare for war. My blog is at your service.

AR
Well we will see but I would certainly hope the NSWCA pres is not so ashamed of the council’s actions he would feel the need to censor the BB to stop people learning what’s happened.

Garvinator
20-07-2005, 10:03 PM
Well we will see but I would certainly hope the NSWCA pres is not so ashamed of the council’s actions he would fell the need to censor the BB to stop people learning what’s happened.
A moderator cannot moderate a thread or posts that they are directly involved in ie Bill cannot moderate this thread. That is my understanding.

ursogr8
20-07-2005, 10:29 PM
And here is the response we received today:

Dear Laura,

We refer to your email dated 18 July 2005 and advise that the position has not changed and your request for an appeals committee has been rejected. The appeal had been rejected by Council and their view is that appeals should not be ongoing because of unfavourable decisions. The Grade Match booklet is clear that the rules regarding competition are the responsibility of the NSWCA Council.

Accordingly, the games scheduled for tonight will proceed.

We might add that whilst Peter Cassettari is the Grade Match Arbiter and Bill Gletsos is President, all emails are circulated to all Council members, so that they are informed and can arrive at independent decisions on matters with no undue influence of any other Council Member.

We are sorry that you may stand by your decision to withdraw from the competition, but the Council has made its considered fair and reasonable decision taking all matters into account. A withdrawal from the competition would be an unauthorised withdrawal and may be subject to disciplinary action by the Council. Should you decide to stay in the competition, we wish you best of luck for the remaining games.

Yours sincerely,
NSW Chess Association Inc.

Tom Accola
Secretary

The foreshadowed potential disciplinary action for unauthorised withdrawal is the second one I have heard about in a week. Strange how you hear an odd word for the first time and then suddenly a day later you hear it in another quarter.
Anyhow, I digress.

Does anyone know the NSWCA procedure for dealing with unauthorised withdrawals; by teams; by individuals?
And the appeals process for appealing against a decision to penalise an unauthorised withdrawal....that would be another appeal, right? Going to an independent judge, right?

starter

arosar
20-07-2005, 10:34 PM
Umm...did a post just disappear???

No matter, I have already quoted it. See my blog.

AR

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 10:41 PM
Umm...did a post just disappear???

No matter, I have already quoted it. See my blog.

AR

I deleted one of my posts, beacuse it was explaned to me it was not appropriate material to be up here.

arosar
20-07-2005, 10:45 PM
I deleted one of my posts, beacuse it was explaned to me it was not appropriate material to be up here.

Well, I quoted it in my blog. Once it was out in the public domain, that's it.

And who told you it was not appropriate?

AR

Kerry Stead
20-07-2005, 10:46 PM
:wall:

Again, the disclaimer I put in my earlier post applies ... what follows in my own view ... and I'm a member of the St George club and on the NSWCA council.

As far as I can see, there has only been one mistake here ... that of not putting the round 8 game between Canterbury & Sydney Acedemy on Monday night at Canterbury. It was initially put on the website as a SAC home game on Thursday (even though their home night is Wednesday). This mistake was not noticed until Tuesday, making it impossible to change it to a Canterbury home game. Yes, the grade match arbiter is human ... he makes mistakes ...
At no stage as far as I'm aware was the round 9 draw put on the website as anything other than in numbers (eg: 2v4; 1v3) until it was posted as it currently is, with St George v Canterbury & Asquith v SAC. If the teams assumed the wrong thing, that is not the fault of the arbiter or the NSWCA council.
As far as I know, SAC have no problem with the draw as it stands, but are simply upset about the 'changing' of it 'at the last minute'.
As for the appeals process being somehow tainted ... on what do they case this claim? What are the actual grounds for appeal?
Just because the team captains ASSUMED the draw for round 9 & 10 doesn't mean that they are necessarily right about it ...
If they feel so strongly about this that they want to withdraw from the competition, that is there decision, but there is nothing in either the rules of the competition or the FIDE handbook that I know of that would justify the protests of SAC.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong ... but I thought this was a CHESS competition ...

arosar
20-07-2005, 11:13 PM
In a stunning turn of events, the fearless Closet Grandmaster was forced to remove a citation from an apparently inappropriate material.

The expunged material may yet make a comeback. The Close GM will seek legal opinion on the matter.

Thank you.

AR

arosar
20-07-2005, 11:16 PM
Oi Andrew, can you make another 3 posts? I can't send you PMs til then.

My gloves are coming off. The bullies are coming out. Time to play dirty.

Cheers.

AR

Kerry Stead
20-07-2005, 11:26 PM
My gloves are coming off. The bullies are coming out. Time to play dirty.
Amiel, is this another one of your crusades for the 'little guy who has been hard done by'?
Let me guess ... your blog will be abuzz with action ...

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 11:26 PM
Oi Andrew, can you make another 3 posts? I can't send you PMs til then.

My gloves are coming off. The bullies are coming out. Time to play dirty.

Cheers.

AR
ahhh so thats why my PM dident work, right thats one down....

arosar
20-07-2005, 11:35 PM
Amiel, is this another one of your crusades for the 'little guy who has been hard done by'?
Let me guess ... your blog will be abuzz with action ...

Now listen here Kezza, I realise Bill is your mate. But I reckon these blokes at the SCA need some sympathies.

The irony is, even the St George mob are very unhappy with the NSWCA. So, you see, you NSWCA mob are about to be run into a corner.

We still doing the interview right?

AR

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 11:36 PM
:wall:

Again, the disclaimer I put in my earlier post applies ... what follows in my own view ... and I'm a member of the St George club and on the NSWCA council.

As far as I can see, there has only been one mistake here ... that of not putting the round 8 game between Canterbury & Sydney Acedemy on Monday night at Canterbury. It was initially put on the website as a SAC home game on Thursday (even though their home night is Wednesday). This mistake was not noticed until Tuesday, making it impossible to change it to a Canterbury home game. Yes, the grade match arbiter is human ... he makes mistakes ...
At no stage as far as I'm aware was the round 9 draw put on the website as anything other than in numbers (eg: 2v4; 1v3) until it was posted as it currently is, with St George v Canterbury & Asquith v SAC. If the teams assumed the wrong thing, that is not the fault of the arbiter or the NSWCA council.
So you’ve got the draw in numbers. We assumed the numbers represented the placeings from the first 7 rounds, which seems a reasonable assumption given: 1. That’s how it worked when I have played in a division with a 4-team final series before. 2. The other teams believed the same thing. 3. The first round of the finals went ahead in accordance with that interpretation of the number draw. 4. The arbiter and scorer where talking to us about changing the draw, obviously implying there was a draw, which must have been that one, since nothing else was published at that point.


As far as I know, SAC have no problem with the draw as it stands, but are simply upset about the 'changing' of it 'at the last minute'.

We wouldent have a problem with any draw which was followed consistently from the start. We are upset about a draw being changed after one round of a three round final, at the suggestion of one of the captains, without any consultation with the other teams.


As for the appeals process being somehow tainted ... on what do they case this claim? What are the actual grounds for appeal?

You mentioned something in an earlier post about supposed incompetence of the council. That’s not it at all. We don’t in any way think anyone is incompetent, the problem is bias. That is not in any way criticism of the council, but I can’t see how anyone could ever be objective when asked to review their own decisions. It basically SAC vs. Council with Council as judge and jury. How can that possibly be fair and unbiased?


Just because the team captains ASSUMED the draw for round 9 & 10 doesn't mean that they are necessarily right about it ...

You seem to be arguing there was no draw at all. How can you make a draw up round by round in a round robin??? Why was there a draw published in the grade match booklet if there was in fact no draw? Why did the first round go ahead according the this draw we just ‘assumed’?


If they feel so strongly about this that they want to withdraw from the competition, that is there decision, but there is nothing in either the rules of the competition or the FIDE handbook that I know of that would justify the protests of SAC.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong ... but I thought this was a CHESS competition ...
Exactly, that is why the result shouldn’t be altered by off the board events.

lemonruski
20-07-2005, 11:38 PM
As the person who wrote the email that was removed I guess I should say something about it too.

Bill Gletsos sent an email insisting that it be taken down as he claimed it was "defamatory". Apparently, anything that suggests his arguments are not entirely valid and based on facts is defamatory. His claim was that the email suggested he was a liar, when it did no such thing.

The purpose of putting this email up on the bulletin board was not to personally attack Bill in any way. It was posted so that everyone could get a clearer picture of the situation, and so that everyone would realise why we are so disappointed in the actions of the NSWCA Council.

If the truth about this situation reflects badly on any individual, they only have themselves to blame.

P.S. I hope no-one posts anything in disagreement with anything I have said, it may "suggest" that I am a liar and could be considered defamatory. :)

Kerry Stead
20-07-2005, 11:40 PM
Now listen here Kezza, I realise Bill is your mate. But I reckon these blokes at the SCA need some sympathies.

The irony is, even the St George mob are very unhappy with the NSWCA. So, you see, you NSWCA mob are about to be run into a corner.

We still doing the interview right?

AR

Why do they 'need some sympathies'?
What are the 'St George mob' unhappy about?

Amiel, you do realise that your gossip-mongering based on rumour and innuendo doesn't always lead to the truth or the right answer ...

No problem about the interview ... its unrelated anyway! ;)

arosar
20-07-2005, 11:42 PM
As the person who wrote the email that was removed I guess I should say something about it too.

Bill Gletsos sent an email insisting that it be taken down as he claimed it was "defamatory". Apparently, anything that suggests his arguments are not entirely valid and based on facts is defamatory. His claim was that the email suggested he was a liar, when it did no such thing.

The purpose of putting this email up on the bulletin board was not to personally attack Bill in any way. It was posted so that everyone could get a clearer picture of the situation, and so that everyone would realise why we are so disappointed in the actions of the NSWCA Council.

If the truth about this situation reflects badly on any individual, they only have themselves to blame.

P.S. I hope no-one posts anything in disagreement with anything I have said, it may "suggest" that I am a liar and could be considered defamatory. :)

So the question is, is it defamatory to criticise the actions of persons in office, elected by the people?

Now, btw lemon, how did you know that a certain so-and-so had a certain influence of the Council's decision in such-and-such a direction?

AR

arosar
20-07-2005, 11:43 PM
What are the 'St George mob' unhappy about?

Oh you are such a gossiper!! Mate, you've been talking too much yourself. I know this!

AR

Kerry Stead
20-07-2005, 11:45 PM
P.S. I hope no-one posts anything in disagreement with anything I have said, it may "suggest" that I am a liar and could be considered defamatory. :)

Not in this case ... but there have been times in the past ... probably ... ;)


Yes, the above comment was not entirely serious ... in case you didn't get it!

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 11:45 PM
What a storm in a tea cup, SAC should withdraw and go sulk in a corner and let the other play in peace.

They huff and puff about withdrawing but are really stalling to hear the result of the game between STGeorge vs Canterbury, if Saints win they withdraw, if Canterbury wins they stay in.

Just wait and see, SAC will either say they are poor victims or Winners over adversity. Go sell that crap to the fox network, we don't need it.

I’ve now heard that St. G lost last night. And guess what, we are still withdrawn. bergil, do you feel like retracting that comment now?

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2005, 11:49 PM
As the person who wrote the email that was removed I guess I should say something about it too.

Bill Gletsos sent an email insisting that it be taken down as he claimed it was "defamatory". Apparently, anything that suggests his arguments are not entirely valid and based on facts is defamatory. His claim was that the email suggested he was a liar, when it did no such thing.Of course it did,
You called my arguments untruthful.

PHAT
20-07-2005, 11:50 PM
A withdrawal from the competition would be an unauthorised withdrawal and may be subject to disciplinary action by the Council.

A threat?

Andrew Bird
20-07-2005, 11:57 PM
Bill, I have a suggestion. Now we have withdrawn, our match played against Canterbury should not be counted, and the finals now be treated as a three team round robin. We scored 2.5 against Canterbury, if that stood and we where counted as forfeiting 4-0 against the other teams, that would unfairly disadvantage Canterbury.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 12:00 AM
Bill, I have a suggestion. Now we have withdrawn, our match played against Canterbury should not be counted, and the finals now be treated as a three team round robin. We scored 2.5 against Canterbury, if that stood and we where counted as forfeiting 4-0 against the other teams, that would unfairly disadvantage Canterbury.I would agree. That decision however is ultimately up to the Council.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 12:03 AM
Below is a copy of an email I sent to the NSWCA Council requesting a fair appeal. It has previously been removed by request of one of the Council members on the basis it was defamatory.

Although I disagree with this entirely, in the spirit of co-operation I have deleted the supposedly defamatory comments. I am re-posting this email because even excluding the deleted sentence it contains a number of valid points in this argument that I honestly just don't have time to rewrite.


Dear NSWCA Council Members,

As you have no doubt heard, we are very unhappy with not only the outcome of our appeal in the grade matches, but also with the unfair appeals process.

Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only
allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council.

After we put forward our protest, we were not given any further opportunity
to argue our case. In ridiculous contrast, one of the people protested against
was able to see our arguments, then argue his case directly to the other council members, and participate in the vote! All his correspondence with other council members is in secret, which means that there is no-one to check any of the facts, and this also gives us no opportunity to disprove any of his arguments. By his own admission this is completely unfair.

To give you an idea of the power of his unfair influence, I would like you to consider this:
-The members of both of the other teams in the final (besides St George and
Sydney Academy) believe that the published draw in the grade match booklet was the draw for the final rounds - they took it as being published.
-Every single other person invloved in the tournament that we have discussed this with (including captains from teams that did not make the finals) also agree that the draw was published at the beginning of the tournament.
-The only (9?) people who seem to think that it "doesn't count" have all had lengthy emails from Bill Gletsos full of his opinion on the matter, supported by very convincing (although *******************************) arguments trying to counter everything said in the appeal.
Don't pretend this is a coincidence when you know that you have put an undeserved amount of trust in Bill's opinion and did not feel the need to check the facts or come to your own independent decision.

We would like to propose that a FAIR appeals committee be formed to hear this matter. The committee should be made of 3 INDEPENDENT parties, who are not members of any club participating in the tournament or members of he
NSWCA council. It would be preferable for the committee to be made of 3 International Arbiters, because a knowledge of the rules is very important for a fair outcome.

Both sides of the argument should also have a fair chance to state their case. We should be given a chance to respond to Bill's arguments and vice versa, we should not be treated unfairly just because we are not on the council.

If the NSWCA is willing to do the right thing and allow a fair appeals process,
we are willing to abide by the decision the committee makes and not withdraw from the competition.

If the NSWCA refuses to allow a proper appeal, we will be forced to stand by our decision to withdraw because of changes to the rules during the tournament.

I look forward to your response.

Laura Moylan,
on behalf of all teams members,
Sydney Academy


***Please let me know if you have any other problems with the material in this post and I will be more than happy to delete that information

PHAT
21-07-2005, 12:05 AM
untruthful

= porkies

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:09 AM
I would agree. That decision however is ultimately up to the Council.

But I'm sure you could ever so gently prod them, no?

AR

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:12 AM
Below is a copy of an email I sent to the NSWCA Council requesting a fair appeal. It has previously been removed by request of one of the Council members on the basis it was defamatory.

Although I disagree with this entirely, in the spirit of co-operation I have deleted the supposedly defamatory comments. I am re-posting this email because even excluding the deleted sentence it contains a number of valid points in this argument that I honestly just don't have time to rewrite.


Dear NSWCA Council Members,

As you have no doubt heard, we are very unhappy with not only the outcome of our appeal in the grade matches, but also with the unfair appeals process.

Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only
allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council.

After we put forward our protest, we were not given any further opportunity
to argue our case. In ridiculous contrast, one of the people protested against
was able to see our arguments, then argue his case directly to the other council members, and participate in the vote! All his correspondence with other council members is in secret, which means that there is no-one to check any of the facts, and this also gives us no opportunity to disprove any of his arguments. By his own admission this is completely unfair.

To give you an idea of the power of his unfair influence, I would like you to consider this:
-The members of both of the other teams in the final (besides St George and
Sydney Academy) believe that the published draw in the grade match booklet was the draw for the final rounds - they took it as being published.
-Every single other person invloved in the tournament that we have discussed this with (including captains from teams that did not make the finals) also agree that the draw was published at the beginning of the tournament.
-The only (9?) people who seem to think that it "doesn't count" have all had lengthy emails from Bill Gletsos full of his opinion on the matter, supported by very convincing (although *******************************) arguments trying to counter everything said in the appeal.
Don't pretend this is a coincidence when you know that you have put an undeserved amount of trust in Bill's opinion and did not feel the need to check the facts or come to your own independent decision.

We would like to propose that a FAIR appeals committee be formed to hear this matter. The committee should be made of 3 INDEPENDENT parties, who are not members of any club participating in the tournament or members of he
NSWCA council. It would be preferable for the committee to be made of 3 International Arbiters, because a knowledge of the rules is very important for a fair outcome.

Both sides of the argument should also have a fair chance to state their case. We should be given a chance to respond to Bill's arguments and vice versa, we should not be treated unfairly just because we are not on the council.

If the NSWCA is willing to do the right thing and allow a fair appeals process,
we are willing to abide by the decision the committee makes and not withdraw from the competition.

If the NSWCA refuses to allow a proper appeal, we will be forced to stand by our decision to withdraw because of changes to the rules during the tournament.

I look forward to your response.

Laura Moylan,
on behalf of all teams members,
Sydney Academy


***Please let me know if you have any other problems with the material in this post and I will be more than happy to delete that information

No fair. That part I removed from my site is still there. So that is it then. It's going back up.

AR

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 12:14 AM
Of course it did,
You called my arguments untruthful.

I cannot argue my point without disagreeing with yours. I did not feel this was a personal attack on you as I referred to your arguments and not to you personally.

That said, I have removed this remark and I apologise if it caused any offence. I do honestly wish to resolve this in a civilised way which is why I did what I thought was the right thing and appealed directly to the council in the first place.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 12:15 AM
But I'm sure you could ever so gently prod them, no?You do the other Council members a disservice by suggesting they would blindly follow my lead.
In fact if they did NSW wouldnt be rating non NSWCA events in which suspended players like Ilic can still play.

Andrew Bird
21-07-2005, 12:15 AM
No fair. That part I removed from my site is still there. So that is it then. It's going back up.

AR
It's the *********** bit which is the problem.

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:19 AM
It's the *********** bit which is the problem.

But this was the only part that I quoted:

"Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only
allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council."

That's it. I put it back as my blog is presently unbecoming of itself with that ugly red text.

AR

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:22 AM
I did what I thought was the right thing and appealed directly to the council in the first place.

So you're appealing to the very people you're fighting against?

AR

PHAT
21-07-2005, 12:24 AM
I have removed this remark and I apologise if it caused any offence.

A passive move that will be punished.

Andrew Bird
21-07-2005, 12:25 AM
But this was the only part that I quoted:

"Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only
allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council."

That's it. I put it back as my blog is presently unbecoming of itself with that ugly red text.

AR
Right, sorry about that, when I saw your post saying you had already quoted it I emailed you strait away. Only just looking at your blog now. Interesting.

Garvinator
21-07-2005, 12:26 AM
Right, sorry about that, when I saw your post saying you had already quoted it I emailed you strait away. Only just looking at your blog now. Interesting.
you should have pm rights now ;)

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:28 AM
you should have pm rights now ;)

Oh look, I thought we were done with your gratuitous one-liners mate. THis is a NSW business. Can you, you know...shoosh...shoosh..

Cheers mate.

AR

Andrew Bird
21-07-2005, 12:30 AM
you should have pm rights now ;)
yep, its active. Now just a few more posts till I catch up with you. :D

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 12:31 AM
I cannot argue my point without disagreeing with yours. I did not feel this was a personal attack on you as I referred to your arguments and not to you personally.

That said, I have removed this remark and I apologise if it caused any offence. I do honestly wish to resolve this in a civilised way which is why I did what I thought was the right thing and appealed directly to the council in the first place.I had no problem with you emailing the council directly.

I do however object to you calling my arguments untruthful.
Given you are complaining about not being privy to private emails between council members then how could you possibly claim I was being untruthful in those emails as you have not seen them.

If you are referring to any comments I made to Brett in my reply to his emails, Brett had every opportunity to responded to my replies (which in fact he did) and all of his emails to me and my replies were forwarded to the council.
I dont however recall Brett calling me untruthful, just that his opinion differed from mine.

Garvinator
21-07-2005, 12:35 AM
yep, its active. Now just a few more posts till I catch up with you. :D
now all you need to do is keep this thread going for about another 4000 pages and you will get there :cool: :rolleyes:

arosar
21-07-2005, 12:35 AM
Right, before I go to bed to get my beauty sleep, I need to ask that cute lemon a question. In this passage:

"Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council."

how did you establish that Bill was allowed to influence all members of council?

AR

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 12:45 AM
I had no problem with you emailing the council directly.

I do however object to you calling my arguments untruthful.
Given you are complaining about not being privy to private emails between council members then how could you possibly claim I was being untruthful in those emails as you have not seen them.

If you are referring to any comments I made to Brett in my reply to his emails, Brett had every opportunity to responded to my replies (which in fact he did) and all of his emails to me and my replies were forwarded to the council.
I dont however recall Brett calling me untruthful, just that his opinion differed from mine.

Once again, I said your arguments were untruthful, I did not call you untruthful. And once again I apologise for this and have removed the comment.

And our main complaint is not that we couldn't read your "private" emails, it is that you wrote such emails in the first place. As someone directly involved in this appeal, you should have nothing to do with the appeals process.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 01:02 AM
Right, before I go to bed to get my beauty sleep, I need to ask that cute lemon a question. In this passage:

"Our appeal was against the actions of those responsible for producing the draw for the final rounds of the grade matches, ie Bill Gletsos and Peter Cassettari. It is astounding to us that both of these parties were not only allowed to vote on this matter, but that Bill Gletsos was also allowed to influence all members of the council."

how did you establish that Bill was allowed to influence all members of council?

AR

Bill was kind enough to drop by our place of business in the middle of a working day to discuss this matter. During these conversations, Bill admitted that after reading our emails, he emailed the other council members, telling them his opinion and giving his recommendations on this matter. Of course if he was not directly involved in this appeal, there would be no problem with a discussion between council members. But he is directly involved. He was able to personally email all the council members to try to convince them of his opinion. He was able to try to refute any arguments we put forward (or other council members put forward), and we were given no chance to do the same.

Obviously this gives his side of the argument a ridiculously unfair advantage in any appeal. He influenced the discussions over this appeal and this obviously would influence the result. And he was allowed to do this :D

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 01:12 AM
Bill was kind enough to drop by our place of business in the middle of a working day to discuss this matter. During these conversations, Bill admitted that after reading our emails, he emailed the other council members, telling them his opinion and giving his recommendations on this matter. Of course if he was not directly involved in this appeal, there would be no problem with a discussion between council members. But he is directly involved. He was able to personally email all the council members to try to convince them of his opinion. He was able to try to refute any arguments we put forward (or other council members put forward), and we were given no chance to do the same.What I told you was that I passed all of Bretts emails to the council along with my replies. I also informed you that Steve, Peter and myself explained to the other council members what actions we had taken with regards the draw.

You may well consider this undue influence. We would simply consider it as giving an account of our actions.

antichrist
21-07-2005, 01:18 AM
All of this is due to a lack of transparency due to members being unable to attend Council and/or committee meetings. And if the constitution is not changed it will go on happening.

jase
21-07-2005, 01:19 AM
To start, might I suggest a valid interpretation of the 'published draw' ... the 1v4, 2v3 etc are pairing numbers (after all the final stage of the competition is a round robin) ... pairing numbers being: Sydney Academy 1; Asquith 2; St George 3; Canterbury 4; There would therefore be a need to publish a draw, as the booklet is indicative that the finals are a round robin and nothing more. It has been assumed that the numbers refer to placings in the preliminary rounds, but that is not necessarily the case.

It is a recognised convention that Berger tables, which assign pairings through numerical values, be applied to determine pairings for Round Robin events.

It is clear that the finals pairings refer to the top 4 teams, thus it is only a matter of clarification to assign the relevant teams to their pairing numbers. It is not necessary, but courteous and helpful.

A draw has been published, in the form of a Berger table, with the addition of a finals series.


The top 4 teams will play a three game Round Robin to determine the final standings. The grade match Arbiter will publish the draw at the end of Round 7

Round 8: 1 v 4, 2 v 3 Round 9: 4 v 3, 1 v 2 Round 10: 2 v 4, 3 v 1

It is necessarily the case that the numbers for the finals series refer to placings in the preliminary rounds. This provides clarity for all concerned, and adheres to both convention and history.


F.6 A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2).


The section you quote is from the SWISS PAIRING rules ... but the grade matches is not paired according to the Swiss system ... its a round robin.


A rule book cannot cover every circumstance. The very first words of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations

I regard the principle of published pairings standing, as stated in the chapter on Swiss Pairing Systems, to be analogous for other pairing systems.

PHAT
21-07-2005, 01:20 AM
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

:hmm:

Andrew Bird
21-07-2005, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
:hmm:
:lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 01:33 AM
Once again, I said your arguments were untruthful, I did not call you untruthful. It is the same thing. You are saying what I said in my arguments were lies.


And our main complaint is not that we couldn't read your "private" emails, it is that you wrote such emails in the first place.No you said

All his correspondence with other council members is in secret, which means that there is no-one to check any of the facts, and this also gives us no opportunity to disprove any of his arguments.
As I said even if you saw what was said by Peter Cassettari or Steve Carratt or myself in emails to the council you cannot disprove them as you have no first hand knowledge of the actions described in the first place.

Brett explained in his emails that I forwarded to the council exactly what he was protesting about and how he interpreted the grade match booklet.

The arbiter is entitled to explain how he chose to interpret it and what actions he took.

Sydney Chess Academy may well disagree with his interpretation and his actions which clearly Brett did in his emails which were passed to the council, but disagreement with them is just that disagreement.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 01:55 AM
As I said even if you saw what was said by Peter Cassettari or Steve Carratt or myself in emails to the council you cannot disprove them as you have no first hand knowledge of the actions described in the first place.



When we spoke in person, I was able to disprove many of your arguments. As this was after the councils original decision, I assume that these were the same sorts of things you said to them.

The problem is, with a one-sided argument you can pretty much convince anyone of anything, so long as they are not willing to put in the effort to thoroughly investigate it for themselves. All of your arguments do at first seem sensible and correct, so someone who had no real passion for this issue would probably just see that and agree. But a fair decision cannot be reached with a one-sided argument. When your arguments were tested, they did not hold up. But your arguments were not tested before the council, if they were, I doubt very much that their decision would have been the same.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 02:02 AM
When we spoke in person, I was able to disprove many of your arguments.That is simply your opinion. I do not recall agreeing with you.

The problem is, with a one-sided argument you can pretty much convince anyone of anything, so long as they are not willing to put in the effort to thoroughly investigate it for themselves. All of your arguments do at first seem sensible and correct, so someone who had no real passion for this issue would probably just see that and agree. But a fair decision cannot be reached with a one-sided argument. When your arguments were tested, they did not hold up.Again simply your opinion. I could say the same about your arguments.

But your arguments were not tested before the council, if they were, I doubt very much that their decision would have been the same.And again simply your opinion. All of Bretts emails were copied to the Council. They could see for themsleves his arguments in his own words and judge them accordingly.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 02:10 AM
Again simply your opinion. I could say the same about your arguments.


And indeed you did, to the council. That is the whole point, if you hadn't noticed.

I obviously need to say this in a clearer way.

You saw all our correspondence and were given a chance to respond to this directly to the council.

We did not get to see your correspondence and weren't given a chance to respond.

This is unfair. You even admitted this was unfair.

The council has put in writing that it feels it's decision is fair.

The president of the association has admitted to us in person that this was unfair.

Unfair is the opposite of fair.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 02:23 AM
Again simply your opinion. I could say the same about your arguments.


And indeed you did, to the council. That is the whole point, if you hadn't noticed.

I obviously need to say this in a clearer way.

You saw all our correspondence and were given a chance to respond to this directly to the council.

We did not get to see your correspondence and weren't given a chance to respond.

This is unfair. You even admitted this was unfair.No, you claimed it was unfair. You also claimed whilst I was there with you and Brett that I agreed with you. I never agreed with you and I told you so. Your response was you could see it in my eyes. I just ignored that comment.


The council has put in writing that it feels it's decision is fair.

The president of the association has admitted to us in person that this was unfair.No, you claimed it was unfair. You also claimed whilst I was there with you and Brett that I agreed with you. I never agreed with you and I told you so. Your response was you could see it in my eyes. I just ignored that comment.

Perhaps I should have just told you that if you believed that you were deluding yourself.

antichrist
21-07-2005, 02:38 AM
I have had a nap tonight and still need entertainment (the missus is asleep), so come on lemonruski, don't let him get away with that! I am on your side.

Kerry Stead
21-07-2005, 02:43 AM
For those that have forgotten that there is still a chess competition going on ... with SAC withdrawing from the competition, there is only one game to be played - Asquith v Canterbury.

The result of this game will lead to the following scenarios:
Asquith win 4-0 = Asquith & St George =1st
Asquith win (other than 4-0) = St George 1st
Match drawn (2-2) = Canetrbury & St George =1st
Canterbury win (2.5-1.5 or better) = Canterbury 1st

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 02:44 AM
No, you claimed it was unfair. You also claimed whilst I was there with you and Brett that I agreed with you. I never agreed with you and I told you so. Your response was you could see it in my eyes. I just ignored that comment.

Perhaps I should have just told you that if you believed that you were deluding yourself.

Earlier in the conversation, when I first brought up this point about the unfair appeal, you admitted that it was not fair for one side to half an inside voice on the appeals committee and be able to see all the other sides correspondence. You also told me that it was impossible to make a fair appeal against a member of the NSWCA Council about anything, because under no circumstances would they be excluded from the vote or discussion.

At the end of the conversation, I said I could see it in your eyes that you knew you had done the wrong thing. The reason I said this was that at numerous times during the conversation, you had no response to points I brought up, and after a blank look, all you could come up with was "the council made it's decision" or "the council can choose to interpret the rules as it wants". I took this type of answer to mean that you had no valid point to make (else you would have made it) and just wanted to assert your authority to make yourself feel better. Not the actions of someone who stills believes they did the right thing.

I would also like to mention, and please correct me if I'm wrong (we can always ask the other people who were there), a conversation you had with Peter Parr. Peter told you that this whole thing was ridiculous and that you only changed the draw so St George could play Zhao against us. Your reply was that you had no idea about Zhao's availability, and if you had you might have made a different decision. If this is true, this means that you did not consider all the facts in your original decision. It also suggests that you are not making a decision based solely on the rules of chess and the rules of the competition. Knowledge of a players' availability may have changed the decision? If that's not biased, I don't know what is

bergil
21-07-2005, 02:58 AM
I’ve now heard that St. G lost last night. And guess what, we are still withdrawn. bergil, do you feel like retracting that comment now?
About stalling? Yes

As for a storm in a tea cup, no

You have to do what you feel is right but I would have played on, as you had to play all the teams anyway and if you didn't know who was available for the other teams and when, there would be no fuss.

That's not the case, and you do. That in my opinion is why SAC has withdrawn. If you say otherwise that fine but as I'm not a NSWCA council member and I'm not a StGeorge member, that what it looks like to me

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 03:00 AM
I thank you very much for debating this with me Bill, but unfortunately I have to get some sort of sleep. I would like to continue this another time, please don't think that logging off means that I am in any way changing my viewpoint.

I would also like to thank you for not turning this into a personal sledging match as could have easily happened. It is my hope that this can be solved in a civilised way.

I hate to even be involved in a dispute like this. Unfortunately, I also hate to stand by and watch this injustice happen to my teammates, so I have to stand up for what I believe in.

I hope that this disagreement doesn't mean that everyone involved will be mad at each other when it's all over. :)

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 03:30 AM
Earlier in the conversation, when I first brought up this point about the unfair appeal, you admitted that it was not fair for one side to half an inside voice on the appeals committee and be able to see all the other sides correspondence. You also told me that it was impossible to make a fair appeal against a member of the NSWCA Council about anything, because under no circumstances would they be excluded from the vote or discussion.I dont agree that is what was said. You were at the time talking about Kerry having a vote as he is a member of St. George. I pointed out that there was no requirement based on that fact alone for him to not vote. I also pointed out that no one else on the council felt that he should not vote.

At the end of the conversation, I said I could see it in your eyes that you knew you had done the wrong thing. The reason I said this was that at numerous times during the conversation, you had no response to points I brought up, and after a blank look, all you could come up with was "the council made it's decision" or "the council can choose to interpret the rules as it wants". I took this type of answer to mean that you had no valid point to make (else you would have made it) and just wanted to assert your authority to make yourself feel better. Not the actions of someone who stills believes they did the right thing.Actually it was just that I could see I was not going to change your mind and was not therefore going to waste my time trying.


I would also like to mention, and please correct me if I'm wrong (we can always ask the other people who were there), a conversation you had with Peter Parr.As far as I am aware the only other people there were Stephen Kerr and jase however I think Steve had left by the time Peter and I discussed the grade matches.

Peter told you that this whole thing was ridiculous and that you only changed the draw so St George could play Zhao against us.I dont recall Peter saying it was ridiculous or making any such claim.
The availabilty of players was however raised.

Your reply was that you had no idea about Zhao's availability, and if you had you might have made a different decision.All I pointed out to Peter with regards player availability was that as far as I knew no one on the council knew the availability of any players for the final rounds and as such any claim that the decison to change rounds 9 and 10 in favour of St. George was plain rubbish. I never stated that I would have made a different decision if I had known of Zhao's availability, in fact I said who was available and who wasnt was totaly irrelevant to the draw changing as neither I nor the arbiter was aware of player availability when the draw was changed.
If your source claims otherwise then they misheard it and are mistaken.

If this is true, this means that you did not consider all the facts in your original decision. It also suggests that you are not making a decision based solely on the rules of chess and the rules of the competition. Knowledge of a players' availability may have changed the decision? If that's not biased, I don't know what isGiven there is no truth to this then I wont waste my time commenting on it.

arosar
21-07-2005, 06:38 AM
You may well consider this undue influence. We would simply consider it as giving an account of our actions.

You really have a problem with perception Bill.

Two things must now happen:

1.) another appeal for the SAC
2.) REMOVE your mod powers from this board.

These must happen. It seems to me that the SAC were heavily disadvantaged.

AR

arosar
21-07-2005, 06:43 AM
It is the same thing. You are saying what I said in my arguments were lies.

All thisn demonstrates your unsuitability to hold high office Bill. It's quite clear to everyone that she was not attacking you personally. She was referring to your actions in your capacity as President. Period!

Your behaviour is totally improper. This is what it has come down to. Anyone who criticises the NSWCA is threatened will legal action. FMD! What a joke.

DISGRACEFUL.

AR

WhiteElephant
21-07-2005, 07:22 AM
Wasn't there recently a debate about what makes a good arbiter...a few people mentioned public relations being of primary importance while Bill said that was irrelevant. Funnny about that....

arosar
21-07-2005, 07:32 AM
Hey WE, I hear we can subscribe to you for poker videos. How much is the cost?

AR

antichrist
21-07-2005, 07:32 AM
Bill is arranging for a second to admit the facts and apologise on his behalf.

Libby
21-07-2005, 07:34 AM
It is a recognised convention that Berger tables, which assign pairings through numerical values, be applied to determine pairings for Round Robin events.

It is clear that the finals pairings refer to the top 4 teams, thus it is only a matter of clarification to assign the relevant teams to their pairing numbers. It is not necessary, but courteous and helpful.

A draw has been published, in the form of a Berger table, with the addition of a finals series.



OK, not claiming knowledge etc of the merit of arguments or "history" here but why would you have anything in the booklet at all (1v2, 3v4 or whatever) if it meant nothing? If you are going to publish a draw which is entirely manufactured based on potential "excitement" for participants then the preliminary booklet need contain nothing whatsoever other than, perhaps, the dates on which play will occur.

In any parallel experience for me in other sports, you play a round robin, get to the finals series, and if you are 1 you play 4 (or whatever is dealt by the pre-published finals structure). 1 = came first in the preliminary rounds, 4= came fourth in the preliminary rounds. If I was presented with a competition like this, that would be the assumption I would make.

At the very least, goodwill could be (partly) salvaged by admitting that a number of teams - which seems possible, if not probable - may have assumed 1= first, 4 = fourth etc. And may have placed weight on such an idea. In which case, at the very least, NSWCA needs to improve the clarity of information provided to Clubs for the event.

You don't have to have done something wrong to be able to do something better.

arosar
21-07-2005, 07:54 AM
Watch out Libby...you might just get yourself bludgeoned by Bill. There are many people who are unhappy with the NSWCA - some real high powered types. They're copping it from all quarters.

I got me ears firmly on the ground mate. I hear things. And I tell you what. A revolution is a-coming. Being a pinoy, I know a thing or two about revolutions.

The first step is to remove Bill's mod powers.

AR

antichrist
21-07-2005, 07:57 AM
Watch out Libby...you might just get yourself bludgeoned by Bill. There are many people who are unhappy with the NSWCA - some real high powered types. They're copping it from all quarters.

I got me ears firmly on the ground mate. I hear things. And I tell you what. A revolution is a-coming. Being a pinoy, I know a thing or two about revolutions.

The first step is to remove Bill's mod powers.

AR

Are you encouraging Libby to do a Cory Aquino and hide under a bed in the convent till it all blows over?

AR, you are needed in St George thread.

WhiteElephant
21-07-2005, 08:00 AM
Hey WE, I hear we can subscribe to you for poker videos. How much is the cost?

AR

Wish that were so but I am meely a poker amateur considering subscribing to some videos myself - ones I found on the World Poker Tour website (worldpokertour.com).

A mate of mine who is friends with Joe Hachem, that Aussie $10 mil winner, told me Joe kept ringing him every day of the tournament expecting to get knocked out. Nice win in the end :owned:

arosar
21-07-2005, 08:03 AM
Hey mate listen, can I do an email interview with you on poker and why you play it? I am doing one with Kezza. Is that OK??

AR

arosar
21-07-2005, 08:04 AM
Are you encouraging Libby to do a Cory Aquino and hide under a bed in the convent till it all blows over?

Libby's more useful than Cory ever was. She was bloody useless that woman. And to think I paraded around Cebu in me yellow shirt just to get her in power.

AR

Libby
21-07-2005, 08:15 AM
Watch out Libby...you might just get yourself bludgeoned by Bill. There are many people who are unhappy with the NSWCA - some real high powered types. They're copping it from all quarters.

AR

Well I hope not. I'm trying not to tread controversially in someone else's backyard.

However I think you have to be careful to respect a reasonable inference that can be drawn from what you write into your rules. It may not have been what was intended, but if you can read it with objectivity, you can often be forced to eat your words.

I've been there myself. Huffing and puffing over the unreasonable assumptions of others only to reread my words (later, in a quiet moment) and realise they probably had a point.

Like I said, if the "published" draw (not that a draw was "published") had no bearing on anything, it was probably best not to have anything in the booklet at all.

arosar
21-07-2005, 08:33 AM
All of this is due to a lack of transparency due to members being unable to attend Council and/or committee meetings. And if the constitution is not changed it will go on happening.

This remark was not challenged by Gletsos because it's in the too hard but too true basket.

The only way to correct this injustice to SAC is to have another appeal. This time with a totally independent committee or some such that is not composed of the usual farts.

It is also important that Bill's emails to council be made available for inspection to the SAC or their representatives.

The NSWCA has clearly behaved disgracefully over this matter.

AR

Brian_Jones
21-07-2005, 09:45 AM
Hey WE, I hear we can subscribe to you for poker videos. How much is the cost?

AR


Poker DVDs and other stuff arriving in next 10 days. Keep your eye on www.gamblingaustralia.com.au

arosar
21-07-2005, 09:53 AM
Poker DVDs and other stuff arriving in next 10 days. Keep your eye on www.gamblingaustralia.com.au

Hey BJ, mate, have you got those Chess Asia mags? I need them.

AR

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 10:31 AM
OK, not claiming knowledge etc of the merit of arguments or "history" here but why would you have anything in the booklet at all (1v2, 3v4 or whatever) if it meant nothing? If you are going to publish a draw which is entirely manufactured based on potential "excitement" for participants then the preliminary booklet need contain nothing whatsoever other than, perhaps, the dates on which play will occur.

In any parallel experience for me in other sports, you play a round robin, get to the finals series, and if you are 1 you play 4 (or whatever is dealt by the pre-published finals structure). 1 = came first in the preliminary rounds, 4= came fourth in the preliminary rounds. If I was presented with a competition like this, that would be the assumption I would make.

At the very least, goodwill could be (partly) salvaged by admitting that a number of teams - which seems possible, if not probable - may have assumed 1= first, 4 = fourth etc. And may have placed weight on such an idea. In which case, at the very least, NSWCA needs to improve the clarity of information provided to Clubs for the event.

You don't have to have done something wrong to be able to do something better.

Just for your further information Libby, I refer directly to when you said teams "may have assumed 1= first, 4 = fourth etc".

Round 8 was published (again) on the website following the draw in the booklet exactly, ie 1=1st and 4=4th. Even those who want to pretend that the published draw in the booklet doesn't count cannot sensibly say that putting this up and leaving the other rounds up with the same numbers as in the booklet implies the draw for all of the rounds.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 10:51 AM
It is a recognised convention that Berger tables, which assign pairings through numerical values, be applied to determine pairings for Round Robin events.

It is clear that the finals pairings refer to the top 4 teams, thus it is only a matter of clarification to assign the relevant teams to their pairing numbers. It is not necessary, but courteous and helpful.

A draw has been published, in the form of a Berger table, with the addition of a finals series.



It is necessarily the case that the numbers for the finals series refer to placings in the preliminary rounds. This provides clarity for all concerned, and adheres to both convention and history.





A rule book cannot cover every circumstance. The very first words of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations

I regard the principle of published pairings standing, as stated in the chapter on Swiss Pairing Systems, to be analogous for other pairing systems.

If this is all true and the arbiters decision goes against the very first words in the FIDE Laws of Chess, I believe we are in fact entitled to an appeal from an appeals committee (as is very clearly stated in the grade match rule booklet).

Andrew Bird has previously posted the email from the Secretary of the NSWCA denying such an appeal. How does the NSWCA justify this?

By the way, if we have an appeal against the Laws of Chess being broken which has been denied by the arbiter, it is NOT up to the NSWCA Council to decide whether it is valid, their only role is to form the appeals committee.

Brian_Jones
21-07-2005, 10:54 AM
Hey BJ, mate, have you got those Chess Asia mags? I need them.

AR

Some mags left but difficult to get back issues from the supplier.
Just send me an email telling me what you want!

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 11:32 AM
All thisn demonstrates your unsuitability to hold high office Bill. It's quite clear to everyone that she was not attacking you personally. She was referring to your actions in your capacity as President. Period!You cannot seperate the office from the person in that way. She called my arguments untruthful, i.e that I was lying. That is an attack on me personally.


Your behaviour is totally improper. This is what it has come down to. Anyone who criticises the NSWCA is threatened will legal action. FMD! What a joke.That is incorrect. I threatened no legal action. I never mentioned legal action.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 11:44 AM
You cannot seperate the office from the person in that way. She called my arguments untruthful, i.e that I was lying. That is an attack on me personally.



Saying that someone said something untruthful does not imply they are a liar. A liar is someone who deliberately says things that they know are untruthful. I did not say that you were deliberately untruthful, and I certainly do not believe that.

By your own admission, there were many facts about this matter that you were unaware of. This meant that in trying to argue your case you have said some things that have turned out not to be 100% factual ie untrue.

I would be very interested in a reply to my previous post which is actually related to the topic we are trying to discuss.

Andrew Bird
21-07-2005, 11:50 AM
You cannot seperate the office from the person in that way. She called my arguments untruthful, i.e that I was lying. That is an attack on me personally.

Obviously I can’t post the comments here to explain what I mean, but that is not how I interpret that statement. The way it was written, it looks like an ‘and/or’ statement with one option being that they where untruthful. Saying its possible someone made an untruthful statement is not defamatory.


That is incorrect. I threatened no legal action. I never mentioned legal action.
Not in words, but I think there is an implied threat. If you say ‘this is defamatory, I insist it is removed immediately’, I think there is an implication of possible legal action.

arosar
21-07-2005, 11:54 AM
Not in words, but I think there is an implied threat. If you say ‘this is defamatory, I insist it is removed immediately’, I think there is an implication of possible legal action.

Bill is a man of infinite contortions.

You can say one thing and he'll bend it every which way possible to suit his ends. You are absolutely correct. And this was certainly his gist to me in our PMs. This is why I was moved to remove a citation.

AR

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 12:12 PM
Not in words, but I think there is an implied threat. If you say ‘this is defamatory, I insist it is removed immediately’, I think there is an implication of possible legal action.If you check my email you will see I never used the words insist. I used the word request.

WhiteElephant
21-07-2005, 12:17 PM
Hey mate listen, can I do an email interview with you on poker and why you play it? I am doing one with Kezza. Is that OK??

AR

Sure. PM me. Except that I am not particularly experienced with casino poker. More of a BJ player just getting into poker recently.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 12:30 PM
If this is all true and the arbiters decision goes against the very first words in the FIDE Laws of Chess, I believe we are in fact entitled to an appeal from an appeals committee (as is very clearly stated in the grade match rule booklet).I would contend that the FIDE Laws of Chess (July 2001) describe the actual playing of the game and have nothing to do with the structure, draw, pairings or format of the event.


Andrew Bird has previously posted the email from the Secretary of the NSWCA denying such an appeal. How does the NSWCA justify this?The grade match booklet states in the section concerning Disputes and appeals:
Appeals against the director’s decision may then be made concerning:
(a) The Laws of Chess - to the appeals committee, via the NSWCA or the DOP.
(b) The Competition Rules - to the NSWCA.


By the way, if we have an appeal against the Laws of Chess being broken which has been denied by the arbiter, it is NOT up to the NSWCA Council to decide whether it is valid, their only role is to form the appeals committee.The FIDE Laws of Chess (July 2001) were not broken as they make no mention of pairings or the format of events. They only cover the actual playing of the game.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 01:02 PM
A rule book cannot cover every circumstance. The very first words of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations



I believe that the preparation of the draw would come under administrative questions.

If an administrative question is not covered by the Laws of Chess, these Laws state that a decision should be made by studying analogous situtations. To aid in this "study" they produced the FIDE Handbook. It is full of all the administrative questions not covered by the Laws of Chess.

I assume that the NSWCA Council followed the Laws of Chess and used this to come to a decision?

And once again, I would like to state that if we put forward an appeal because we feel the Laws of Chess have been broken, it is not up to the NSWCA Council to decide if we are right or wrong, their only role is the formation of the appeals committee.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 01:10 PM
I believe that the preparation of the draw would come under administrative questions.

If an administrative question is not covered by the Laws of Chess, these Laws state that a decision should be made by studying analogous situtations. To aid in this "study" they produced the FIDE Handbook. It is full of all the administrative questions not covered by the Laws of Chess.

I assume that the NSWCA Council followed the Laws of Chess and used this to come to a decision?

And once again, I would like to state that if we put forward an appeal because we feel the Laws of Chess have been broken, it is not up to the NSWCA Council to decide if we are right or wrong, their only role is the formation of the appeals committee.We are clearly getting nowhere here.
If you wish to pursue the matter further I suggest you take it up with the NSWCA Council.

arosar
21-07-2005, 01:11 PM
Blog updated!

http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

antichrist
21-07-2005, 01:20 PM
Blog updated!

http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

AR, I visited your blog and then seen at the top "next blog" thinking I may get Matt's or TCN.

But low and behold (again) it was called Bullsh.t and was a lesbian porno/political site with plenty of approp photos - sorry to say but left your site for dead.

It only needed chess and I would have subscribed.

lemonruski
21-07-2005, 02:26 PM
We are clearly getting nowhere here.
If you wish to persue the matter further I suggest you take it up with the NSWCA Council.

I would have to agree that this is going nowhere. Even though we have shown everyone how unfair and illogical this decision is, I very much doubt that the Council will be willing to admit their mistake.

The outcome of any appeal would of course no longer affect the results of the competition. The reason we choose to pursue this anyway is because we would like the council to see that our withdrawal was due to them not following their own competition rules, not any wrongdoing by us. The council is trying to paint us as the bad guys, when all we have done is withdrawn from a competition when it was not run according to the way it was advertised.

And to anyone who thinks we have made too much of a big deal over such a "small" change, why don't you put yourselves in our shoes. You are playing in a tournament, where you are placed equal first. The draw for the finals has been published. For no good reason, after the first round of a 3 round final, the draw is changed to drastically favour the team you are currently tied with. This draw change was suggested directly to the grade match arbiter by the other captain. The state association refuses your request for a fair appeal regarding this matter. Can you really see yourself ignoring this disregard for the rules and letting them get away with it? Would you disrespect yourself but continuing in a competition that has robbed you of your right to appeal an arbiters decision? If you would, you are part of the reason associations are able to get away with this sort of thing.

Finally, I would like to say that I have no animosity towards individual members of the NSWCA Council, and I have tried very hard in all my statements to not make any personal remarks about anyone. All I have done is use the avenues available to me to try to get a fair appeal and a fair decision on this matter. I do hope that none of the Council members (or members of other teams) hold any sort of grudge against me or any of my teammates for pursuing this matter. I feel we are well within our rights to ask for this appeal, and I feel that we have done it in a polite and civilised manner. And although I am generally opposed to anyone withdrawing from a tournament, I feel that our withdrawal was justified, as the decision made was unfair and our right to a fair appeal was denied.

arosar
21-07-2005, 02:26 PM
We are clearly getting nowhere here.
If you wish to persue the matter further I suggest you take it up with the NSWCA Council.

What good will that do? This episode is not exactly the highlight of your career as NSWCA Prez Bill. No personal disrespect to you but you've really stuffed up the whole thing.

These guys are upset right up to their eyeballs. Now what are you going to do about it? Just friggin' give them a fair hearing already. It's that simple. Just make it happen. Your first and foremost job as codified in the NSWCA's own Constitution is to promote chess. You can't bloody do that unless you keep the peace. Instead, you'se mob are just pissing everybody off and only cos you reckon you can get away with it.

We demand an independent appeals tribunal.

AR

arosar
21-07-2005, 02:39 PM
I feel we are well within our rights to ask for this appeal, and I feel that we have done it in a polite and civilised manner. And although I am generally opposed to anyone withdrawing from a tournament, I feel that our withdrawal was justified, as the decision made was unfair and our right to a fair appeal was denied.

Indeed you are well within your rights. If Mr Gletsos here does not correct the matter and form an independent tribunal, I will personally hound the NSWCA, by means of course not subject to BillBot's legal threats, via my blog until they relent.

What has happened here is a travesty of justice.

You should maintain your position. Demand for an independent tribunal. As I say in my blog, this is akin to David Hicks appealing directly back to Donald Rumsfeld.

Go for it!!

AR

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2005, 02:42 PM
What good will that do? This episode is not exactly the highlight of your career as NSWCA Prez Bill. No personal disrespect to you but you've really stuffed up the whole thing.

These guys are upset right up to their eyeballs. Now what are you going to do about it? Just friggin' give them a fair hearing already. It's that simple. Just make it happen. Your first and foremost job as codified in the NSWCA's own Constitution is to promote chess. You can't bloody do that unless you keep the peace. Instead, you'se mob are just pissing everybody off and only cos you reckon you can get away with it.

We demand an independent appeals tribunal.

ARIf you wish to pursue the matter further I suggest you take it up with the NSWCA Council directly via the Secretary. After all I wouldnt want you to accuse me of not accurately representing your views.

arosar
21-07-2005, 02:47 PM
I will do that right now. But my aim will be to have an independent tribunal. You and your pal Cassetarri should stay out of it. I've never been so bloody upset with you lot in all me fkn life. DO you understand justice and being fair?? Huh???

AR

Paul S
21-07-2005, 10:40 PM
Yes, in future a one week break would be desireable.
That logic is flawed as the home/away games depends entirely on which 4 teams make the finals. I will explain why below.
Actually that is not what Charles said at all, but simply a consequence of what he said.
Charles said that the pairings in the final should be the opposite of what they were in the preliminaries which is the way it has occurred in the past. i.e. if St. George played at home against Canterbury in the the first 7 rounds then it should be Cantebury at home against St. George in the final. It is simply a consequence of this home/away aspect that swaps the colours.
Thus it is entirely possible for a team to have 3 away matches in the finals if that team had played the other 3 finalists at home in rounds 1 to 7 or 3 home matches if they had played the other 3 teams away during rounds 1 to 7. e.g if in the current open competition St. George in round 4 had played at home against Asquith then Asquith would have played the other 3 finalists all as away matches during rounds 1 to 7. As such Asquith are the home team against the 3 other teams in the final 3 rounds.

Also it should be noted that a 5-5 split of home and away for all teams in not necessarily possible under this scheme. e.g. assume that the North Sydney Grizzlies had qualified for the finals instead of Asquith. In this case Canterbury would have had 4 home matches, Sydney Chess Academy 4 home matches and the North Sydney Grizzlies 4 home matches in rounds 1 to 7 whilst St. George only had 3 home matches in rounds 1 to 7. Therefore after swapping the home and away fixtures for those 4 teams in the finals, Canterbury would have 1 home match in the finals against Sydney Chess Academy, Sydney Chess Academy would have 2 home matches in the finals against St. George and the North Sydney Grizzlies, The North Sydney Grizzlies would have 2 home matches in the finals against St. George and Canterbury and St. George would have 1 home match in the finals against Canterbury.
This gives a total over the 10 rounds of the Nothe Sydney grizzlies having 6 home matches, Sydney Chess Academy having 6 home matches, canterbury having 5 home matches and St. George having only 4 home matches. There is no way to end up with a 5/5 split for all 4 teams. In fact you cannot even get a 5/5 split for 3 of the teams as then St. George would meet either the North Sydney Grizzlies or Sydney Chess Academy at home in both their matches played over the 10 rounds.

These points do not however invalidate the concept of teams playing the opposite of what they played in the preliminary rounds as by playing in such a manner the teams in the finals have effectively played a double round robin amongst themselves.

This is a typical "muddying of the waters" and obfuscation by Bill. To be fair to Bill I had a 25 minute phone conversation with him earlier today (which I appreciated) and as a result I am now "less negative" towards the NSWCA's handling of the Open Division farce. Even so............................

Yes, I realise these sort of above scenarios that Bill mentions CAN happen, and IF they do, I have no problem with one team making the finals having 4 or 6 home games after 10 rounds and other similar arguments, as I realise that sometimes this is UNAVOIDABLE (and I have NO problem with this).

However, lets get down to FACTS about the 2005 Open Division Grade Matches. I have had a look at the draw for the first 7 rounds. If the draw for the top 4 teams for the "finals series" (last 3 rounds) was done PROPERLY in the first place we would have had:
1) ALL 4 teams at the end of 10 rounds having 5 home and 5 away games.
2) In the finals series (last 3 rounds when the top 4 teams play each other) two teams having 2 home matches and 2 teams having 1 home match.

In an earlier post I have suggested what needs to be done in these sort of theoretical situations (or for that matter the 2005 situation) that Bill postulates. Simply put after completion of round 7:
1) Have no chess in week 8.
2) Email all 4 club organisers of a proposed draw for the last 3 rounds (to be held in weeks 9, 10 and 11) immediately after completion of round 7 and ask for feedback within say 3 days.
3) Make any neccessary modifiations based on feedback and post draw for last 3 rounds on NSWCA website and inform club organisers that this is the draw.

The NSWCA Council seems to think it knows best. Well, as far as the 2005 Open Division Grade Matches is concerned:
1) I am annoyed that I have had to waste my time trying to fix up an AVOIDABLE problem.
2) The NSWCA should post a public apology on its website apologising for its stuff up.
3) The "improved" draw for rounds 9 and 10 was even worse than the already flawed draw for rounds 8 to 10 that was in the Grade Matches booklet. At least in the originally published draw Canterbury was assigned one home game - with the "improved" draw they had NONE. How fair is itfor the finals series (last 3 matches when he top 4 teams play each other) when 3clubs havdve two of these matches at home and one club has NONE?
4) I was surprised at the co-operative attitude of the Asquith club towards the NSWCA Council made shemozzle - Asquith were even prepared to allow the Round 10 Asquith versus Canterbury game to be played at Canterbury, even though Asquith were scheduled to play at home (for those outside of Sydney, the distance between Asquith and Canterbury chess clubs is about 50km). Anyway, as a result of Sydney Chess Academy withdrawing this became a non-issue, but it shows that the chess clubs themselves can recognise the unfairness of the NSWCA's draw for rounds 8 to 10. But of course,NSWCA Council knows best, don't they?!

One more thing. I recognise that there are occasions where club/teams should withdraw from a tournament. However, I don't think the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) should have withdrawn (even allowing for the NSWCA Council's appalling handing of this shemozzle). Canterbury had a much worse deal than what SCA copped, yet none of Canterbury's players (or myself) ever seriously thought of withdrawing the Canterbury Open team from the tournament. Things need to be kept in perspective!

Lastly, the NSWCA Council should listen to one of my favourite Elton John songs and meditate on the lyrics - SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD!!! NSWCA Council - wake up to yourselves and have the decency and humility to publicly apologise over this Open Division farce!!! The NSWCA needs to apologise to the affected clubs and once an apology is given reconcilliation should be easy and from there we can put this whole sorry episode behind us! Otherwise a festering sore in the Sydney chess community will be created that won't go away anytime soon!

arosar
22-07-2005, 07:47 AM
One more thing. I recognise that there are occasions where club/teams should withdraw from a tournament. However, I don't think the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) should have withdrawn (even allowing for the NSWCA Council's appalling handing of this shemozzle). Canterbury had a much worse deal than what SCA copped, yet none of Canterbury's players (or myself) ever seriously thought of withdrawing the Canterbury Open team from the tournament. Things need to be kept in perspective!

They felt themselves to have been unfairly treated. And rightly so. Disintegration is bad overall. But chess will survive, I'm sure - such as in a rival comp for instance. If a new competition is born - you, my dear Paulie, must choose sides. And you must choose wisely.

The question you must consider is: will you be with the bad guys? Or will you be with the good guys?

AR

Vlad
22-07-2005, 10:05 AM
I think there is some clear misunderstanding. The reason I believe most of you never played in the Open division. From practical point of view I can tell you that neither colors (it is alway 2 whites + 2 blacks, who cares who plays which) nor home/away is very important. For me driving somewhere far is a way to have a break from work and from kids:)).

The strength of players is extremely important. If a team has no player like Zhao ot Igor in a particular day there is nothing that can replace them. Think about it nothing at all, only unbelievable luck.

Now regarding the fact that the SAC has withdrawn. The main reason for that I believe was that the arbiter has changed the draw without telling the most of the players. It does not really matter whether he had cruel intentions or not. The most important thing is that it is extremely bad practise and nobody wants it to be repeated. Think about it as the SAC has sacrificed itself for the future of chess.:)) Before the yesterday's game my prior was that the SAC would win with at least 95% probability.:)

arosar
22-07-2005, 03:12 PM
Now regarding the fact that the SAC has withdrawn. The main reason for that I believe was that the arbiter has changed the draw without telling the most of the players. It does not really matter whether he had cruel intentions or not. The most important thing is that it is extremely bad practise and nobody wants it to be repeated. Think about it as the SAC has sacrificed itself for the future of chess.:)) Before the yesterday's game my prior was that the SAC would win with at least 95% probability.:)

Dr Drug. I thought I understood you to mean that you did not approve with what happened to SAC. However, a highly placed individual (a carribou, to borrow antichrist's term) said to me that you think SAC was only after winning. While every other team was accomodating - more into the CHESS as he put it.

AR

PHAT
22-07-2005, 04:46 PM
A very high up, with all the info has informed me that, "...changing the draw was a mistake by [insert councilor] ... "

This WHOLE fiasco has occured because the original mistake was not simply admitted to and simply rectified imeadiately.

What can we learn from this?

antichrist
22-07-2005, 04:49 PM
A very high up, with all the info has informed me that, "...changing the draw was a mistake by [insert councilor] ... "

This WHOLE fiasco has occured because the original mistake was not simply admitted to and simply rectified imeadiately.

What can we learn from this?

How to spell imeadiately properly!

Trent Parker
22-07-2005, 06:56 PM
and that councillor was not me..... :lol:
:silenced:

PHAT
22-07-2005, 07:37 PM
and that councillor was not me..... :lol:
:silenced:

True. But perhaps we should not conduct a process of elimination. :cool:

Vlad
22-07-2005, 09:45 PM
Dr Drug. I thought I understood you to mean that you did not approve with what happened to SAC. However, a highly placed individual (a carribou, to borrow antichrist's term) said to me that you think SAC was only after winning. While every other team was accomodating - more into the CHESS as he put it.

AR

Well, well, well... Let me say a few things about accommodating. First, not everybody is accommodating. Here is the example. Last year before the final round of this competition the same two teams were leading. Both teams had chances of winning, i.e. the last round was crucial. Our team was playing North Sydney team, while St George was playing Canterbury (if I am not mistaken). Our captain Brett found in the internet that North Sydney club opens at 7-30. (Unfortunately nobody in our team had a brochure with the Grade matches rules.) So we turned up at 7-30 and found that we already lost 30 minutes each. What a surprise, they not only came exactly at 7 but also started all 4 clocks immediately. They explained that the club has to close by some time and they will not give us these 30 minutes. It did not affect two of our players, but it certainly affected the other two. In particular, Greg Canfell lost precisely because he did not have enough time. The other player Andrew Bird got lucky – in a time trouble and having completely lost position he got his opponent to blunder. So, that time we were lucky, while our opponent was certainly accommodating. :)

Now, regarding this year’s situation let me make everything as transparent as possible. Let me describe everything in numbers, they are approximate or even better to be called relative but they will let me to make my point. I would think with the original draw the four teams had the following chances of winning: SAC – 94%, Canterbury – 3 %, St George – 2 % and AL – 1 %. With a new draw I would think the chances of winning are: SAC – 60 %, St George – 20 %, Canterbury – 15 % and AL – 5 %. What happened? Well, each team except for SAC increased its chances. Why? The reason is that the favorite is not so much favorite anymore.

Do not understand me incorrectly though. I am not saying that they are accommodating just because their chances have increased. I am sure all three teams consist of highly respected people. I would think this can be considered as the reason why the SAC is not accommodating.

Now let me make the following suggestion. Why do not we all cooperate and increase our chances of winning the Doerbel Cup. What do I mean? Well, there is a clear favorite in that competition, who wins it more often than anybody else. Let us say make a few disruptions during the Doerbel Cup. Say, instead of 2 hours per game during the first round players will find out that there is only 1.5 hour available. In the second round players will find out that they are playing handicap (weaker players get additional material). In the third round there will be a new rule – whoever touches his king first is the loser, etc. What will it lead to? Well, there is now only a little chance the favorite will win this competition. His chances of winning will be as much as everybody else’s. Off course he will complain and we all together will reply: “You see, we are all accommodating but you!!!”

peanbrain
23-07-2005, 01:20 AM
Now let me make the following suggestion. Why do not we all cooperate and increase our chances of winning the Doerbel Cup. What do I mean? Well, there is a clear favorite in that competition, who wins it more often than anybody else. Let us say make a few disruptions during the Doerbel Cup. Say, instead of 2 hours per game during the first round players will find out that there is only 1.5 hour available. In the second round players will find out that they are playing handicap (weaker players get additional material). In the third round there will be a new rule – whoever touches his king first is the loser, etc. What will it lead to? Well, there is now only a little chance the favorite will win this competition. His chances of winning will be as much as everybody else’s. Off course he will complain and we all together will reply: “You see, we are all accommodating but you!!!”

hey what kind of drug are you? you sound more like dope!! :hand:

Paul S
23-07-2005, 01:23 AM
There seems no end to this Open division fiasco! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Charles Zworestine informed me today that St George are unhappy about some of the effects caused by the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) withdrawal and are almost certainly going to protest to NSWCA Council! While there is considerable merit in his gripe, I have my doubts as to whether or not the NSWCA Council should uphold his appeal (if they did I think it may well create more problems - perhaps even protests against protests!). Oh well, we will wait and see what happens! :rolleyes:

While on the subject of Dr Z, I have been appalled at some of the accusations and innuendo against him in this thread - a lot of which seems to come from SCA. Someone who does as much for Australian Chess as what he does should not have to put up with this sort of rubbish. I have always found him to be fair and honest in his role as a DOP. In fact with the 2004 Combined Leagues Rapidplay (Charles was arbiter), it is possible that Canterbury won (St George came second) because Charles gave an unrated Canterbury player (who ended up winning the U1400 division) a lower than expected provisional rating - this is hardly the sort of thing one would expect from someone who (according to some people in this thread) supposedly manipulates things for the benefit of St George. I wonder if any of Charles' accusers had bothered to contact Charles and get his side of the story before making posts about him on this BB? :hmm: I think not!

peanbrain
23-07-2005, 01:28 AM
OK all ypu NSWCA bashers should just shut up. Unless you are a professional chess player than I suggest you get a life, just a game ok?! :doh:

PHAT
23-07-2005, 01:52 AM
... I have been appalled at some of the accusations and innuendo against him in this thread ...

Not just him [CZ].

As much as I do not support the NSWCA, I say that I have not yet encountered ANY actions buy it that should be called corrupt. Plenty of examples of average normal human incompetance, but nothing deliberately evil.

The NSWCA needs something. What is it?

PHAT
23-07-2005, 01:58 AM
just a game ok?! :doh:

'Some people believe football is a matter of life and death.
I'm very disappointed with that attitude.
I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.'


And chess? ;)

PHAT
23-07-2005, 01:59 AM
OK all ypu NSWCA bashers should just shut up.

GF

Vlad
23-07-2005, 09:09 AM
For those that have forgotten that there is still a chess competition going on ... with SAC withdrawing from the competition, there is only one game to be played - Asquith v Canterbury.

The result of this game will lead to the following scenarios:
Asquith win 4-0 = Asquith & St George =1st
Asquith win (other than 4-0) = St George 1st
Match drawn (2-2) = Canetrbury & St George =1st
Canterbury win (2.5-1.5 or better) = Canterbury 1st



There seems no end to this Open division fiasco! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Charles Zworestine informed me today that St George are unhappy about some of the effects caused by the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) withdrawal and are almost certainly going to protest to NSWCA Council! While there is considerable merit in his gripe, I have my doubts as to whether or not the NSWCA Council should uphold his appeal (if they did I think it may well create more problems - perhaps even protests against protests!). Oh well, we will wait and see what happens! :rolleyes:



Well, the reason is clear. After the SAC's withdrawal the chances are
Canterbury - 84%, St George - 15 %, AL - 1%. So under the original draw ST George had only 2% chances, under the 'updated' draw St George had 20% and finally after our withdrawal St George has 15%.

Now let me conduct a little comparative analysis. The SAC appealed when its chances dropped from 94% to 60%. It seems for St George the drop from 20% to 15% is enough to lodge an appeal.

auriga
23-07-2005, 10:36 AM
ok,
maybe its time to annul the current final series,
wait 4 or so weeks for the emotions to get back to normal levels
and then cordially invite the 4 finalists into a new series
and let's finish of the 2005 season!

the previous finals were voided as soon as the draw was
changed after the round had started.
i'm not too sure who, why, when this happened but it did.
whether the draw was officially published is debatable but
the draw was out there as a match had started with this unofficial draw.

everything else is relevant but the 'draw change'
breached a cardinal rule of tournaments (whether chess or otherwise)
ie. once the draw is published (and play begins) it remains in place.

there is no obvious cheating by anyone just an unfortunate chain of events.

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 01:45 PM
ok,
maybe its time to annul the current final series,
wait 4 or so weeks for the emotions to get back to normal levels
and then cordially invite the 4 finalists into a new series
and let's finish of the 2005 season!

the previous finals were voided as soon as the draw was
changed after the round had started.
i'm not too sure who, why, when this happened but it did.
whether the draw was officially published is debatable but
the draw was out there as a match had started with this unofficial draw.

everything else is relevant but the 'draw change'
breached a cardinal rule of tournaments (whether chess or otherwise)
ie. once the draw is published (and play begins) it remains in place.

there is no obvious cheating by anyone just an unfortunate chain of events.

Once again, this become a nice thought ... but then you have the problem that the board 1 for Asquith (Bjelobrk) is (I believe) returning to Melbourne, so the only team that haven't protested about the finals would have a legitimate gripe.
Although I suppose the SAC percentages would increase - after all when they were 'scheduled' to play a team without Bjelobrk they seem to rate themselves pretty highly!

auriga
23-07-2005, 02:06 PM
Once again, this become a nice thought ... but then you have the problem that the board 1 for Asquith (Bjelobrk) is (I believe) returning to Melbourne, so the only team that haven't protested about the finals would have a legitimate gripe.
Although I suppose the SAC percentages would increase - after all when they were 'scheduled' to play a team without Bjelobrk they seem to rate themselves pretty highly!

to twist a saying 'you can't please everyone all the time'.
the interclub organiser should be (in all fairness) oblivious to all the player availabilities. he/she simply sets a reasonable draw and thats it.

bjelobrk may pop back in 4 weeks time (to play in sydney weekender or see friends) or rogers may be back from amsterdam or stay in europe, zhao doing exams, etc, etc. who knows. i think were trying to over engineer this finals business.

just set a time and place in advance and let the teams field the best possible team they can and let the chess decide the winner.

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 02:12 PM
to twist a saying 'you can't please everyone all the time'.
the interclub organiser should be (in all fairness) oblivious to all the player availabilities. he/she simply sets a reasonable draw and thats it.

bjelobrk may pop back in 4 weeks time (to play in sydney weekender or see friends) or rogers may be back from amsterdam or stay in europe, zhao doing exams, etc, etc. who knows. i think were trying to over engineer this finals business.

just set a time and place in advance and let the teams field the best possible team they can and let the chess decide the winner.

I thought that's what was suggested ... but some people seemed to have problems with it ...

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 03:20 PM
To answer jase's concerns ...


It is a recognised convention that Berger tables, which assign pairings through numerical values, be applied to determine pairings for Round Robin events.

It is clear that the finals pairings refer to the top 4 teams, thus it is only a matter of clarification to assign the relevant teams to their pairing numbers. It is not necessary, but courteous and helpful.

A draw has been published, in the form of a Berger table, with the addition of a finals series.

It is necessarily the case that the numbers for the finals series refer to placings in the preliminary rounds. This provides clarity for all concerned, and adheres to both convention and history.

A rule book cannot cover every circumstance. The very first words of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations

I regard the principle of published pairings standing, as stated in the chapter on Swiss Pairing Systems, to be analogous for other pairing systems.

Jason ... lets just assume for a minute that I accept everything you say in terms of rules, publication of draw, etc ...
I'm happy to agree that Berger tables are an accepted standard for round robin draws.
I'll run with your argument about history and convention for finals series with Berger pairings referring to the placings of teams after preliminary rounds.
I agree that the FIDE laws cannot cover every situation.

However, think about this for a second ...
The draw for rounds 1-7 had a number of additional things ... day of play, venue of play, colour allocation ... was this information in the 'published draw' of Berger tables?? Did the draw as published vary from the Berger tables in any respect? Yes, you can say that they swapped rounds 9 & 10. Was there ever a day of play for any games in round 9? What about round 10? What about venues?
Bill has said on behalf of the arbiter that the draw was 'changed' to add 'more interest' to the competition ... this was done by simply naming dates and venues of the remaining matches that needed to be played in the competition. You may consider this a flimsy reason, but I know I've run round robin events where I have changed the order of rounds from the standard Berger tables. I had reasons for doing this, and even explained them to a number of players who questioned my doing of it. Does this changing of order affect the way that the competion is decided? Its a round robin - every team plays every other team. There are no special circumstances such as 'double points in round 10' or something like that. Rules were introduced at the behest of the SAC captain to cover a previous issue in the Open division, and now teams must pre-register a limited number of over 2000 players for their team, and players who are over 2000 who have not been pre-registered are not eligible to play. This rule has been enforced, and no teams have had problems with it.
Did the draw have all teams playing one another? Did it conform to the Berger tables in that respect?
Its been acknowledged by all teams other than SAC (and some members of that team have also conceeded the point) that venue and colour allocation should be the opposite of what it was for the preliminary stage of the competition. The Berger tables that the NSWCA should apparently so rigidly stick to showed 1v4, 2v3 (and I'l run with your placings determine pairing numbers fo rthe sake of argument) ... so according to the 'published draw', SAC should have been the home team. The scorer and webmaster (NOT the DOP) put the draw for round 8 on the web as St George v Asquith; SAC v Canterbury. This was not correct! Yes, this was a mistake - I'm sure the DOP, scorer, NSWCA and others are happy to admit this. However this mistake was only realised on Tuesday - and was therefore impossible to correct, as Canterbury have their home night on Monday. The DOP did the best that could be done in the situation and informed the players that the match would proceed at SAC's home venue, but for the purposes of colour allocation, it should be treated as a Canterbury home game. Is all this covered by the FIDE rules? Does it strictly adhere to the 'published draw' of the Berger tabels?? No. I don't think anyone would think it would.

My point through all of this bickering, protesting, appealing, etc is that ultimately its a CHESS COMPETITION, which is won by the team that scores the most points by PLAYING CHESS against other teams. It seems as though a number of people involved in this saga have forgotten this simple point!

Andrew Bird
23-07-2005, 03:47 PM
While on the subject of Dr Z, I have been appalled at some of the accusations and innuendo against him in this thread - a lot of which seems to come from SCA.
I have known Charles for a long time, and I have a very high opinion of him. If my previous posts have looked like a personal attack on him, I apologise. Probably I should have made it clear earlier he was not the subject of our complaints. I am upset with the NSWCA Council, not with Charles or St.George. It may well be that his suggestion where made purely to improve the competition and he had no intention of favouring his team. Even if he did, you could argue a captain has the right to make any suggestion he wants, even if it is one that favours his team. It’s natural for a captain to want his team to win and there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is not with Dr.Z making a suggestion but with the Grade match Arbiter and the NSWCA council adopting that suggestion without consulting any other team. If they had received a suggestion, then contacted the other 3 teams and asked for input, there would be no perception of bias. Instead they adopted the recommendation without even telling the other teams, and then it became apparent the change favoured St.Gorge and hindered their main rivals. That meant that a lot of people thought that the decision was made to help St George, and that Charles had a role in that. Many people I have spoken to have come to this conclusion without reading the BB. Its not anyone’s posts on the BB which have given people this impression, it’s the sequence of events. If we at SCA had done nothing and said nothing some people would still have come to this conclusion.

It’s not Dr Z’s fault the NSWCA acted in this manner. I don’t think its good if the NSWCA acts in a way which makes them look dodgy, but its very bad if they act in a way that makes innocent individuals look dodgy as well. If I was Dr. Z, I would be very unhappy with what has happened.

Again let me make it clear I have a lot of respect for Charles and I think he is a huge asset to NSW chess, and I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing. It’s a pity that events may reflect badly, in the minds of some people, on a totally innocent individual.

auriga
23-07-2005, 04:53 PM
Does this changing of order affect the way that the competion is decided?

i would say 'yes'. changing the order of play in a round robin
does have a big impact on the final result, right?!

eg. zhao can play chess on 1 night and has to study on the other.
which game do you get him to play. the other match you may risk losing without him. (similar situation tonight with andrew john playing for newcastle with parramtta. the result would be much different in r1 or r26)

but once the mistake is made it's too late - it should stick.

Thunderspirit
23-07-2005, 04:54 PM
I believe a player from St. George has confirmed that Charles actually got together with some members of the St. George team and worked out what was the "best draw" for them.
This doesn't mean that he actually told Bill or anyone in the NSWCA about it, but I can´t help thinking about this: Why would he try to work out what the best draw for his insterests was if he "knew" that the draw couldn't be legally changed? to make everyone feel sick for their bad luck? very odd, isn't it? :hmm:
I don't think other teams got together with such an objective because I don't think it ever crossed our minds that the draw could be changed.

Javier this is completely false. It did not happen.

auriga
23-07-2005, 04:57 PM
Javier this is completely false. It did not happen.

which bit!? everything?
getting together with some members.

Thunderspirit
23-07-2005, 05:00 PM
There seems no end to this Open division fiasco! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Charles Zworestine informed me today that St George are unhappy about some of the effects caused by the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) withdrawal and are almost certainly going to protest to NSWCA Council! While there is considerable merit in his gripe, I have my doubts as to whether or not the NSWCA Council should uphold his appeal (if they did I think it may well create more problems - perhaps even protests against protests!). Oh well, we will wait and see what happens! :rolleyes:

While on the subject of Dr Z, I have been appalled at some of the accusations and innuendo against him in this thread - a lot of which seems to come from SCA. Someone who does as much for Australian Chess as what he does should not have to put up with this sort of rubbish. I have always found him to be fair and honest in his role as a DOP. In fact with the 2004 Combined Leagues Rapidplay (Charles was arbiter), it is possible that Canterbury won (St George came second) because Charles gave an unrated Canterbury player (who ended up winning the U1400 division) a lower than expected provisional rating - this is hardly the sort of thing one would expect from someone who (according to some people in this thread) supposedly manipulates things for the benefit of St George. I wonder if any of Charles' accusers had bothered to contact Charles and get his side of the story before making posts about him on this BB? :hmm: I think not!


Thankyou Paul...

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 05:07 PM
i would say 'yes'. changing the order of play in a round robin
does have a big impact on the final result, right?!

eg. zhao can play chess on 1 night and has to study on the other.
which game do you get him to play. the other match you may risk losing without him. (similar situation tonight with andrew john playing for newcastle with parramtta. the result would be much different in r1 or r26)

but once the mistake is made it's too late - it should stick.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andrew Johns can potentially play every game for Newcastle - he's registered for the club - although he may be useless on some occasions because his jaw is wired up or he has difficulty walking, etc, but its POSSIBLE for him to play.

This also applies to chess ... players such as Zhao are registered ... they can potentially play every game. If circumstances dictate otherwise, then so be it, but its possible to play every game.

Your final observation is an interesting one ... a mistake has been made by the NSWCA ... what one considers the mistake to be, or how it is 'made to stick' however is the tricky part ...

auriga
23-07-2005, 05:09 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andrew Johns can potentially play every game for Newcastle - he's registered for the club - although he may be useless on some occasions because his jaw is wired up or he has difficulty walking, etc, but its POSSIBLE for him to play.

This also applies to chess ... players such as Zhao are registered ... they can potentially play every game. If circumstances dictate otherwise, then so be it, but its possible to play every game.

Your final observation is an interesting one ... a mistake has been made by the NSWCA ... what one considers the mistake to be, or how it is 'made to stick' however is the tricky part ...

no,
in the state of origin week (or australia v nz week) johns couldn't play.
stuart could also insist he not play for newcastle.
he's an old timer. he can't back twice in a week.
this has BIG impact for newcastle.

another example is the aussie soccer players playing for australia.
sometimes the club (eg. liverpool) can determine they play club not international. however, they are changing the rules all the time (ie. international takes priority).

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 05:23 PM
no,
in the state of origin week (or australia v nz week) johns couldn't play.
stuart could also insist he not play for newcastle.
he's an old timer. he can't back twice in a week.
this has BIG impact for newcastle.

another example is the aussie soccer players playing for australia.
sometimes the club (eg. liverpool) can determine they play club not international. however, they are changing the rules all the time (ie. international takes priority).

Yes, there are SOME circumstances where a player like Johns could not play ... but this is only because of his selection in the NSW or Australian team, which is considered to be of a higher priority than the regular club competition. You could apply the same situation to chess ... there is no 'State of Origin', but the World Juniors are on at this time, so that would take priority for the players, although there is no contractual obligation on players as there is with the NRL, so the situation is not entirely analogous.
Yes, it may impact the performance of the team if he does not play, but it does not in itself prevent the team from playing or winning games.

What point are you trying to make by bringing up such examples? Participation or non-participation of one player in a team does not of itself determine a result ...

Andrew Bird
23-07-2005, 06:31 PM
To answer jase's concerns ...



Jason ... lets just assume for a minute that I accept everything you say in terms of rules, publication of draw, etc ...
I'm happy to agree that Berger tables are an accepted standard for round robin draws.
I'll run with your argument about history and convention for finals series with Berger pairings referring to the placings of teams after preliminary rounds.
I agree that the FIDE laws cannot cover every situation.

However, think about this for a second ...
The draw for rounds 1-7 had a number of additional things ... day of play, venue of play, colour allocation ... was this information in the 'published draw' of Berger tables?? Did the draw as published vary from the Berger tables in any respect? Yes, you can say that they swapped rounds 9 & 10. Was there ever a day of play for any games in round 9? What about round 10? What about venues?
Of course the day of play etc. was not in the published draw, because the teams playing those rounds where not decided yet. But each team must nominate a venue and a home night before the start of the competition, so those details are automatic once the draw is decided. You seem to be trying to imply that the lack of those details on the Berger tables necessitated decisions to be made by the arbiter, but that is not he case. If St. George are draw to play at home in a particular week, the match will be on Tuesday night, and it will be held at St George Leagues Club, 14 Princes Highway, Kogarah. This is stated in the Grade match booklet. So the Berger tables DO constitute a complete draw in themselves.


Bill has said on behalf of the arbiter that the draw was 'changed' to add 'more interest' to the competition ... this was done by simply naming dates and venues of the remaining matches that needed to be played in the competition. You may consider this a flimsy reason, but I know I've run round robin events where I have changed the order of rounds from the standard Berger tables. I had reasons for doing this, and even explained them to a number of players who questioned my doing of it.

You may have run tournaments in the past where you changed the round order, but I think in most round-robin events this would be considered unacceptable. In a single round robin, the only really significant thing the draw affects is the colour between two players. In a double round robin, even that is not the case because every player has a white and a black against every other player. Surly then the effects of different possible draws are minimal, but even so they are done by random drawing of lots and are not changed during the event.

Consider Linares, the worlds most prestigious chess tournament. This year it was a double round robin. The organisers would have considerable reason for wanting to make the draw ‘more exciting’ because it is a commercial event with spectators and sponsors so there is much to be gained if they could get an exiting last round. This year they were lucky, the two players who where in contention, Kasparov and Topalov, happened to be pared against each other in the last round. But the players you would think are most probable to be competing for victory are the two top seeds, Kasparov and Anand. The organisers might have been tempted to change the draw to make these two play in the last round, but the draw was done by random drawing of lots, just like every other round-robin I’ve ever heard of, and it was not changed. I think if they had changed the draw there would have been a huge uproar, and it would be considered a total farce.
In the grade matches, there are two big differences. There are no spectators or sponsors, so there is much less reason to try to make it ‘more exciting’. And the change dose have a very significant impact, because it changes which players will play against which different teams.


Does this changing of order affect the way that the competion is decided? Its a round robin - every team plays every other team. There are no special circumstances such as 'double points in round 10' or something like that.

Zhao is an IM. Bjelobrk is near IM strength. Having an IM strength player on b.1 makes a huge difference. Are you really trying to deny that?

My point through all of this bickering, protesting, appealing, etc is that ultimately its a CHESS COMPETITION, which is won by the team that scores the most points by PLAYING CHESS against other teams. It seems as though a number of people involved in this saga have forgotten this simple point!
Good! I’m glad to see you agree with us on this point Kerry. If you think the comp should be decided over the board, and an off the board decision is going to substantially change the results, you must therefore think that change should not have happened. Right??

Kerry Stead
23-07-2005, 07:13 PM
<snip>
You seem to be trying to imply that the lack of those details on the Berger tables necessitated decisions to be made by the arbiter, but that is not he case. If St. George are draw to play at home in a particular week, the match will be on Tuesday night, and it will be held at St George Leagues Club, 14 Princes Highway, Kogarah. This is stated in the Grade match booklet. So the Berger tables DO constitute a complete draw in themselves.

<snip>
In a double round robin, even that is not the case because every player has a white and a black against every other player. Surly then the effects of different possible draws are minimal, but even so they are done by random drawing of lots and are not changed during the event.

Consider Linares, the worlds most prestigious chess tournament. <snip>
In the grade matches, there are two big differences. There are no spectators or sponsors, so there is much less reason to try to make it ‘more exiting’. And the change dose have a very significant impact, because it changes which players will play against which different teams.

Zhao is an IM. Bjelobrk is near IM strength. Having an IM strength player on b.1 makes a huge difference. Are you really trying to deny that?

Good! I’m glad to see you agree with us on this point Kerry. If you think the comp should be decided over the board, and an off the board decision is going to substantially change the results, you must therefore think that change should not have happened. Right??

Let's look at your points Andrew ...

Your points about Berger tables constituting a draw and double round-robins having players (or teams in this case) with one game with each colour against each opponent seem to conflict. Or are home games and colour allocation independent of one another, in spite of the competition rules?

Was there a point of the Linares comparisson? I would hardly compare the competitions as being similar, apart from both being chess tournaments.

I'm not doubting that the 'more exciting' reason does seem rather flimsy, however the fact that players are nominated would suggest that any players who have been nominated can play in any round. Your 'information' that Zhao & Bjelobrk would be available/unavailable for a particular round is only speculation is it not? Do you know for sure? What events may have transpired had the SAC team NOT withdrawn from the competition?

Are you saying that if you were to play teams with Zhao & Bjelobrk in them that you would not be able to score enough points to win the competition? The statistics are apparently in your favour ... Are you saying that you'd prefer to compete in a competition where you had to play 'weakened' teams? Would that not be something of a hollow victory? Seems strange for a team that outwardly at least seems to pride itself on its principles ...

Yes, I agree that the competition should be decided by PLAYING CHESS ... surely by withdrawing from the competition and NOT PLAYING CHESS you are going against this principle. Yet I thought you said you agreed ...

Andrew Bird
23-07-2005, 07:20 PM
An important subject is the reasons given for the change in the draw. There have been two different reasons given at different times, neither of which justifies the change in my opinion. The first is to balance the Home/Away games and/or colours, and to try to make each paring between two clubs happen at the opposite venue to their match in the prelims. The second reason is to make it ‘more exciting’.

Home/Away games
As I said before, although you can argue about the best way create the draw for the final rounds, once a decision has been made and the draw published, it must stand. If we think it is better to make sure all final matches are played at the opposite venue to the first match, then by all means lets make the draw that way next year, but it is not the time to change it 1 round into the 3 round finals.

But even if you insist the draw can and must be changed for these reasons, that only explains the changing of the home venue to be used for each mach, not the changing of which week the match is played. Sydney Chess Academy was originally drawn to play St George, away at St George, in round 9. If it was really considered essential that this be a home game for SCA, why could this not just be a SCA home game in R9? Why change it to round 10? You could make any change you want to Home/Away pairings without changing which week teams play each other.

'more exciting’
There are competitions where those in charge change the rules form time to time as they see fit in order to make things ‘more exciting’ and these are called ‘Survivor’ and ‘Big Brother’. This kind of thing has no place in an organised sporting contest. The job of the officials in any kind of organised competition is to ensure the event runs smoothly according to the rules, not to manipulate the play as the event progresses in order to make themselves more excited.

Why do we need to make it more exciting anyway? To sell more tickets in the grandstands? To get more money from the TV stations broadcasting the event? This event is basically only for the benefit of those playing in it, and what they want is a well organised, consistent competition. Contrived excitement is for reality TV.

brett
23-07-2005, 09:10 PM
Hi,

This is my first post (probably my last)

Being the person who put in the original complaint to the NSWCA about the draw change, I would like to give an account of my side of the story.

My protest was simply that the draw was published in the grade match book for the final rounds (now taken down off the NSWCA webpage) and the draw had then changed.

After speaking to Bill in person on the Monday 25th of July I made the decision that our team would withdraw from the competition. However after speaking to several team mates about the issue on Monday it was suggested that we ask NSWCA for another appeal made up of independent people. If this new appeals committee was granted we would play no matter of the result of the appeal.

I felt the draw change was unfair for many different reasons.

1.In the grade matches the draw is worked out at the start of the event so you know exactly know where you are playing each week. As captain it is your job to work out your team, who is taking care of transport and also helping your team prepare for matches. By changing the draw late Wednesday night (I received and email about the draw change at 11.38pm Wednesday night after our match with Canterbury) it completely changed the event. Not only did our team have the problem of playing different teams with different colours, but also arranging your players and transport can be a problem. Originally we were scheduled to play St George in round 9 Tuesday night and then suddenly we are playing Asquith away on a Thursday night. This was a problem for our team because one of our members who we actually planned to play could not make it due to a clash with a NSWJCL meeting. Asquith would have been in the same boat with Ingela not being able to play.

2.The new change of the draw meant that Canterbury got two many away games. Having an away game can be good as it means your top player gets white against the other strong opponents but bad in a sense of having to travel to many different venues.

3.The new draw changes the competition as players who were not available to play at the time can now play. For example we were scheduled to play St George in Round 9 who would be fielding a team without Zhao and in our match against Asquith in Round 10 who would be fielding a team without Igor. With the new draw we were facing Asquith with Igor and in round 10
St George with Zhao.

In some ways the new draw, which the NSWCA proposed, is more correct than what was originally stated as well as the colour change (however Canterbury was severely disadvantaged with 3 away games) However as the pairing numbers were printed in the booklet on who plays who it was too late to change the pairing in round 9.

I would like to point out that I have been playing in NSWCA events for 17 years now and never once have I pulled out of a competition. However I felt that NSWCA had made the incorrect decision and even though our team was coming =1st it was the correct decision to pull out.


In a previous post Paul did mention a good point about Charles Zworestine. He is a nice guy and has done a lot for chess. I totally agree, I have been friend’s with Charles for over 14 years.

He has done a lot for both junior and senior chess giving up countless hours of his time serving on both junior and senior councils, arbiting tournaments etc. But he can get a little competitive in team events (but I guess we can all be accused of being guilty of this :D )

I do know Charles wrote a letter to Peter Cassitari informing Peter that there had been a mistake with the draw and he felt the more correct pairing would be to make Sydney Academy play St George in the last round. Bill did also mention to me that Charles had a conversation on the phone with him and mentioned grade matches in passing and that it would be more exciting if both Sydney Academy and St George met in the last round.

However as Bill correctly pointed out this does not mean Charles had the draw changed. Even though he pointed out the draw was not ideal he was not the person who made the final decision to change the draw.

Personally I hope that all parties involved in the grade matches can learn from the mistakes made this year and make sure that similar problems don’t arise in the future.

Some suggestions for next year

1) The tournament should be run according to the draw published in the handbook. If it’s felt that teams should play at opposite venues in the finals to the preliminaries that should be stated in the draw.

2) NSWCA to have more communication will all captains

3) If a letter of recommendation or complaint is sent to the grade match arbiter all captains should be sent a copy of the email (so there are no secrets)


4) An independent grade match appeals committee formed at the beginning of the competition.

5) Drawing of lots for the competition and maybe a technical meeting of captains where issues can be discussed.



Brett Tindall
Captain of Sydney Chess Academy

Andrew Bird
23-07-2005, 09:16 PM
Let's look at your points Andrew ...

Your points about Berger tables constituting a draw and double round-robins having players (or teams in this case) with one game with each colour against each opponent seem to conflict. Or are home games and colour allocation independent of one another, in spite of the competition rules?
The Berger tables constitute a draw. I agree with you that it is ideal to have one match with at each venue in a double round robin, and would be happy if that had been what the booklet originally said, but it didn’t. If there is a published draw-and there was- it needs to be followed.


Was there a point of the Linares comparisson? I would hardly compare the competitions as being similar, apart from both being chess tournaments.
My point was that in other events this kind of of manipulation is not accepted. Even in an event when the reasons for change are greater, and the side effects less. I was using Linares because it is the top tournament in the world but I could be referring to virtually any tournament- the idea that a round robin draw should be made by random drawing of lots and then not artificially altered is universal.


I'm not doubting that the 'more exciting' reason does seem rather flimsy, however the fact that players are nominated would suggest that any players who have been nominated can play in any round. Your 'information' that Zhao & Bjelobrk would be available/unavailable for a particular round is only speculation is it not? Do you know for sure? What events may have transpired had the SAC team NOT withdrawn from the competition?
Who knows what might have happened? I don’t think that information is only ‘speculation’, that is what we have been told. Other key people knew this as well when the decision to change the draw was being made.


Are you saying that if you were to play teams with Zhao & Bjelobrk in them that you would not be able to score enough points to win the competition? The statistics are apparently in your favour ... Are you saying that you'd prefer to compete in a competition where you had to play 'weakened' teams? Would that not be something of a hollow victory? Seems strange for a team that outwardly at least seems to pride itself on its principles ...
Of course we don’t want to play just 'weakened' teams. In the first 7 rounds, we where the only team to play against St George when they had both GM Ian Rogers and IM Zong-Yuan Zhao, making it the strongest team you could imagine in the Sydney grade matches. Did we complain? Of course not. Did we suggest a new draw that would have avoided these players? No way imaginable. Every team has some problems with player unavailability. Every team is also going to play against other opposition when some of there best players are not available. That is the nature of these events. Sometimes you face a team’s best side, sometimes not, that is the luck of the draw and it affects everyone. The point is the draw is done randomly so no team is favoured. I think we would still have good chances to win with the new draw which should make it clear we where not withdrawing because of sour grapes.

If playing some teams when they don’t have there top players available makes it a ‘hollow’ victory, just about every winning team in every grade matches ever held must have had a ‘hollow’ victory, because it is very rare your opposition will have all their players available in all 10 rounds you play. I would define a ‘hollow’ victory a winning only because of off the board events.


Yes, I agree that the competition should be decided by PLAYING CHESS ... surely by withdrawing from the competition and NOT PLAYING CHESS you are going against this principle. Yet I thought you said you agreed ...
That principal was broken when the draw was artificially manipulated. The sporting integrity of the event had been vandalised beyond repair, so playing it was meaningless. Playing in an event where chess decided the outcome was what everyone wanted, but unfortunately the council’s actions made that impossible.
Instead of avoiding the question and counter attacking, why not answer: Do you agree changing the draw prevents what you seem to want- that the comp be decided on chess and chess alone?

DoroPhil
23-07-2005, 10:13 PM
For those not familiar with the Sydney chess scene, I would like to point out that Mr. Andrew Bird looks like a horse. Therefore, all of his arguments are to be considered in light of this information.

Kerry Stead
24-07-2005, 03:04 AM
Instead of avoiding the question and counter attacking, why not answer: Do you agree changing the draw prevents what you seem to want- that the comp be decided on chess and chess alone?
To cut to the chase rather than once again going around in circles arguing ... No, I don't agree that changing the draw prevents the competition from being decided on chess and chess alone.
Obviously if we disagree about this fundamental point, then no matter what arguments either of us prevent, we will simply stick to our beliefs ...

Vlad
24-07-2005, 10:12 AM
All this discussion reminds me what is happening in the Australian Parliament. The opposition asks:” Did involvement in Iraq have increased the threat of terrorist attack?" The prime-minister replies: "No, it is not!" I believe it is for every individual to decide who is right and who is wrong. However, I have learnt a very valuable lesson from this story. Next time in a similar situation but when I will not have enough information to judge who is right and who is wrong and the Prime-minister will be persuading me that A is right, I will be more likely to believe that A is wrong. In Russia we say “Care about your cloth when it is new and your conscience when you are young!”

antichrist
24-07-2005, 10:16 AM
All this discussion reminds me what is happening in the Australian Parliament. The opposition asks:” Did involvement in Iraq have increased the threat of terrorist attack?" The prime-minister replies: "No, it is not!" I believe it is for every individual to decide who is right and who is wrong. However, I have learnt a very valuable lesson from this story. Next time in a similar situation but when I will not have enough information to judge who is right and who is wrong and the Prime-minister will be persuading me that A is right, I will be more likely to believe that A is wrong. In Russia we say “Care about your cloth when it is new and your conscience when you are young!”

And old Clive Packer (father of Kerry) said: If you don't a touch of pink (left wing) politics in you when you are young you are not worth your salt.

WhiteElephant
24-07-2005, 10:19 AM
All this discussion reminds me what is happening in the Australian Parliament. The opposition asks:” Did involvement in Iraq have increased the threat of terrorist attack?" The prime-minister replies: "No, it is not!" I believe it is for every individual to decide who is right and who is wrong. However, I have learnt a very valuable lesson from this story. Next time in a similar situation but when I will not have enough information to judge who is right and who is wrong and the Prime-minister will be persuading me that A is right, I will be more likely to believe that A is wrong. In Russia we say “Care about your cloth when it is new and your conscience when you are young!”

Aaah you are russian, now I get your handle - sounds much nicer in russian than it does in english :)

Eric
24-07-2005, 10:42 AM
And old Clive Packer (father of Kerry) said: If you don't a touch of pink (left wing) politics in you when you are young you are not worth your salt.


Father of Kerry Packer was Sir Frank Packer. As usual you get it wrong.

Vlad
24-07-2005, 10:49 AM
And old Clive Packer (father of Kerry) said: If you don't a touch of pink (left wing) politics in you when you are young you are not worth your salt.

Thanks mate; you gave me an interesting idea.

Once this is a political issue now, why do not we resolve it using political tools? What do I mean? Well, why do not we conduct a survey among Australian chess players and find out whether people think changing a draw 2 rounds before the end is acceptable or not. I am sure Arosar will be more than happy to organize this on his webpage.:)

antichrist
24-07-2005, 10:58 AM
Father of Kerry Packer was Sir Frank Packer. As usual you get it wrong.

But I was not wrong in St George thread and that is where it matters!

And where were you when people were trying to get the right thing done - certainly not helping!

arosar
24-07-2005, 10:59 AM
Thanks mate; you gave me an interesting idea.

Once this is a political issue now, why do not we resolve it using political tools? What do I mean? Well, why do not we conduct a survey among Australian chess players and find out whether people think changing a draw 2 rounds before the end is acceptable or not. I am sure Arosar will be more than happy to organize this on his webpage.:)

Antichrist is your man for that sort of job.

My job, as far you're concern, is to teach you the King's Indian Defence, like last time.

AR

Vlad
24-07-2005, 11:04 AM
Aaah you are russian, now I get your handle - sounds much nicer in russian than it does in english :)

I am sure most of the people involved in this discussion know my name. I guess the reason why I do not put my name under my posts I do not want to get a reply from Dorophil saying that I look like a monkey.:) BTW, I thought this discussion board is supposed to be censored, is not it? :D

PHAT
24-07-2005, 10:23 PM
Father of Kerry Packer was Sir Frank Packer. As usual you [A/C] get it wrong.

Clive, Kerry, Frank? Who cares? Only you.

Yep, I remember you. The guy with less wit than a nit, and less repartee than a head amputee.

Bugger off, you are a waiste of time.

Eric
25-07-2005, 07:09 AM
But I was not wrong in St George thread and that is where it matters!

And where were you when people were trying to get the right thing done - certainly not helping!


You're part of the problem, not the solution. :wall:

Eric
25-07-2005, 07:11 AM
Clive, Kerry, Frank? Who cares? Only you.

Yep, I remember you. The guy with less wit than a nit, and less repartee than a head amputee.

Bugger off, you are a waiste of time.

First, learn how to spell.

Second, you'd know more about being a bugger than I.

antichrist
25-07-2005, 07:49 AM
You're part of the problem, not the solution. :wall:

Yes PaulS

Trent Parker
25-07-2005, 08:34 AM
This off topic slanging match stops here.... Or i will delete all off topic posts.....

antichrist
25-07-2005, 08:35 AM
This off topic slanging match stops here.... Or i will delete all off topic posts.....

Delete them, I was going to ask you to. Thanks

arosar
25-07-2005, 08:59 AM
A highly prominent member of the SAC team was seen at Hyde Park yesterday lobbying for support. Using skilful oratory, and pouring forth a barrage of facts and figures, the SAC operative was very successful. One listener was heard to have uttered, "F**k the administration!"

It seems that the SAC is sowing the seeds of a revolution a la Petrograd 1917.

AR

Paul S
26-07-2005, 07:45 AM
Yes PaulS

I am not Eric (or anyone else, for that matter). The only posts of mine in Chess Chat are those under the User Name of Paul S.

Paul S
26-07-2005, 07:50 AM
A highly prominent member of the SAC team was seen at Hyde Park yesterday lobbying for support. Using skilful oratory, and pouring forth a barrage of facts and figures, the SAC operative was very successful. One listener was heard to have uttered, "F**k the administration!"

It seems that the SAC is sowing the seeds of a revolution a la Petrograd 1917.

AR

I doubt there will be a revolution anytime soon. At the 2004 NSWCA AGM there wasn't exactly hordes of people willing to be on NSWCA Council! All the office bearers for 2005 were elected unopposed and there were 3 positions that could not be filled (Vice President, Tournament Officer and Member Without Portfolio).

antichrist
26-07-2005, 07:54 AM
[QUOTE=Paul S]I am not Eric (or anyone else, for that matter). The only posts of

At this stage I will take your word on it and apologise.

arosar
26-07-2005, 03:07 PM
There seems no end to this Open division fiasco! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Charles Zworestine informed me today that St George are unhappy about some of the effects caused by the Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) withdrawal and are almost certainly going to protest to NSWCA Council!

Such as that your team, Canterbury, may end up winning?

AR

Paul S
26-07-2005, 05:31 PM
Such as that your team, Canterbury, may end up winning?

AR

Hi Amiel

I don't know precisely what Charles actually sent the NSWCA Council as he seemed a bit undecided as to what the "final content" of his protest should contain. By the way, it is possible (although unlikely) that he may have had second thoughts and decided not to go ahead with his protest (at any rate, I don't have a cc of any emails that Charles sent to NSWCA Council on this matter, so I don't know what - if anything - he sent to NSWCA Council).

If you are interested as to what Charles' gripe is about and what he actually sent to NSWCA Council, then why not get in touch with him and ask him yourself?

Personally I think it is unlikely that the NSWCA Council would uphold his protest, as it would probably open up a "Pandora's Box" of "protests agaist protests"! Then again, I never thought the NSWCA Council would alter the draw after Round 8 (and give one club no home games and the other 3 clubs 2 home games), so I guess anything is possible when it comes to the NSWCA Council! Still, Charles' gripe did have some validity and if I was in his position as "Mr St George" I may very well have sent a protest to NSWCA Council about the effects on the St George Open team caused by Sydney Chess Academy (SCA) withdrawing (which in turn was caused by the NSWCA's appalling handling of the finals series draw).

If Charles' protest is upheld, then it is likely that Canterbury will be affected. If Canterbury is affected, then I would have to get feedback from Canterbury's Open Division players as to what to do (eg whether to "protest against Charles' protest" or do nothing). Which would put me in a bit of an awkward position, seeing as I am also the (somewhat reluctant) St George Treasurer! Anyway, it is all fairly theoretical at this stage, so I am not losing any sleep over this matter!

Regardless of who ends up winning the Open Division of the 2005 Grade Matches, there will (unfortunately) always be a "?" over the winner due to SCA's withdrawal ("would Canterbury/St George have won if SCA did not withdraw") and the NSWCA Council's appalling handling of the finals series draw, which has turned the Open Division into a farce!

PHAT
26-07-2005, 11:33 PM
When a player withdraws early in a tornament it is usual, for the sake of the tornament scores, to reclassify all their games as forfiets.

Since the finals in this teams event are a round robin, the unplayed games would be four 1 point byes.

Thus, all games against SCE become 4-0 wins - and that means nobody is disadvantaged.

... well, that's how I see it.

bergil
26-07-2005, 11:56 PM
Well the thinking is that as St George has played both its games against the remaining teams and Canterbury is only 2 points behind with a game with against a Igor less Asquith. Canterbury are good enough too win outright, or so the school of thought is

The_Wise_Man
27-07-2005, 12:38 AM
Good observation... but George and Igor have already played.
The captains and players agreed to play the game beforehand as is permissable in the Grade Match rules.
They played each other on the Friday night before heading down to ANU!

and the result that you may be dying for....

drumroll......

Igor beat George

Therefore Asquith lead Canterbury 1-nil with 3 games to go!

Wise

PHAT
27-07-2005, 12:43 AM
The captains and players agreed to play the game beforehand as is permissable in the Grade Match rules.


They could have agreed to a draw over the telephone. :lol:

antichrist
27-07-2005, 05:30 AM
They could have agreed to a draw over the telephone. :lol:

we will have to make up a term for doing that - maybe the initials of the person who made it famous in this fiasco? In the meantime "phone-draw"

arosar
27-07-2005, 09:07 AM
we will have to make up a term for doing that - maybe the initials of the person who made it famous in this fiasco?

Which Z is it?

I rather like, "you got Zhaod!"

AR

auriga
27-07-2005, 04:02 PM
so what's the status with the sydney interclub? still being worked out.

shaun
27-07-2005, 07:19 PM
When a player withdraws early in a tornament it is usual, for the sake of the tornament scores, to reclassify all their games as forfiets.



Not quite. In a (FIDE) round robin if a player withdraws before 50% of their games have been played, their score is annulled. Games that were actually played are still submitted for ratings however.



Since the finals in this teams event are a round robin, the unplayed games would be four 1 point byes.

Thus, all games against SCE become 4-0 wins - and that means nobody is disadvantaged.

... well, that's how I see it.

Or points scored for and against SAC don't count towards the final standings. Which has the same effect.

arosar
28-07-2005, 12:58 AM
One post has been deleted from one of the Sydney grade matches threads. While the basic point it made (that the SAC team's withdrawal from the event could create negative publicity for the SAC as a business) was fine I reckon it went too far and became a bit legally dodgy. Post's still under review but be surprised if it returns.

Who was the poster?

AR

peter_parr
28-07-2005, 12:54 PM
Grade Matches

Four teams qualified for the round robin final. Sydney Academy caught up St. George with two matches (8 games) remaining. St. George contacted the NSWCA with their suggestions for a better way to pair the teams in the last two rounds. The NSWCA agreed.

Sydney Academy appealed the decision to amend the pairings. The council dismissed the appeal. Sydney Academy withdrew. What went wrong?

1) In my opinion the pairings for the last two rounds should only be amended as suggested by St. George on agreement by the arbiter and the four team captains involved.

2) When Sydney Academy appealed we have reached Code Red

3) A problem has arisen between 3 people – the arbiter and two captains. Each of the 3 have a long history (at least 17 years each) of serving the chess community – NSWCA President, NSW Junior League President and President of the Sydney Chess Academy. Each of the 3 has a mobile phone.

4) The arbiter should contact by phone the 4 team captains – Canterbury were also upset with the new pairings.

5) The arbiter should determine from the appeal and Canterbury’s and St.George’s suggestion the best option in the circumstances. Telephone gets results (not emails) A compromise could easily have been reached – the most sensible idea being to return to the original pairings (as one round was already played).

6) If agreement could not be reached the arbiter should suggest to the captains an independant arbiter (not on the NSWCA council) acceptable to each captain to decide the pairings – the decision to be final. All captains would agree.

7) An arbiter has to consider was the request to amend the pairings based on certain players being available (2 games on board 1) or unavailable in each of the two weeks. The idea that the top two teams play in the last round are a good reason to amend the pairings is of course incorrect and not in accordance with FIDE practice.

8) The decision to allow the council to handle the appeal is clearly incorrect. History proves time and time again that a council will back up a major office – bearer. Did any member of the NSWCA council speak to the captain of SAC who lodged the appeal before voting on a decision? Did any member of the NSWCA council consider that this process was unfair to SAC?

9) The SAC team agreed to have the decision made by an independent appeal process. They had an excellent chance of winning the competition but withdrew on grounds of unfair treatment. SAC stood by their principles.

10) The NSWCA sees fit to advise SAC that their withdrawal is unauthorised and disciplinary action maybe taken. SAC have suffered enough.

11) The last time the NSWCA set up a Commission of Enquiry into the grade matches the commissioner gave a scathing attack on the grade match secretary, the council and it’s appeal process. The game that had decided the competition in favor of one club was drawn by agreement by telephone with neither player attending a venue, The commissioner pointed out in no uncertain terms that the NSWCA council had acted in an inappropriate manner and the game was finally correctly recorded in accordance with FIDE regulations OF-OF and a letter of apology was sent by NSWCA on recommendation of the commissioner to the offended club. Do we learn nothing from our history?


Summary

In my opinion the pairings should not have been amended after round 1 of the final.

After altering the pairings and an appeal is lodged we have code red.

Arbiter pick up the telephone and resolve it.

Finally and importantly I first captained a chess team in 1959 – if I ever saw a fellow captain being unfairly treated I would assist. St. George could have solved the problem by agreeing to the original pairings as published.

Peter Parr (OAM)
FIDE International Arbiter 27 years
Member of FIDE Rules Commission 1982-1986
Member of FIDE Arbiters Commission 1990-1994
Member of FIDE CHIPS Commission 1982-1990
Member of FIDE Computer Commission 1990-1994

Thunderspirit
28-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Charles never suggested that the pairings be changed. He informed Bill of an error and that it shouldn't happen next year, as it made the Home and Away side of the pairings wrong.

The pairings shouldn't have been changed, this is absolute... but it wasn't Charles' fault that they were...

It's is ok... to make suggestions to the DOP if pairings are incorrect...

Duff McKagan
28-07-2005, 11:37 PM
Peter Parr raises good points here:



1) In my opinion the pairings for the last two rounds should only be amended as suggested by St. George on agreement by the arbiter and the four team captains involved.
Absolutely... any proposed changes otherwise can wait until the next season.



4) The arbiter should contact by phone the 4 team captains – Canterbury were also upset with the new pairings.
Yes, this is being fair to all involved. If one of these captains objects to the changes, then unlucky... they can wait until the next season to change (correct?) any mistakes.



9) The SAC team agreed to have the decision made by an independent appeal process. They had an excellent chance of winning the competition but withdrew on grounds of unfair treatment. SAC stood by their principles.
Standing by their principles means more than winning a biased or unfair competition.



Finally and importantly I first captained a chess team in 1959 – if I ever saw a fellow captain being unfairly treated I would assist. St. George could have solved the problem by agreeing to the original pairings as published.
So true. Even if St.George hadn't suggested the changes to the draw, they should have shown more sportsmanship and assisted to keep the competition fair for all.
Overall, changing the rules halfway is just a ridiculous idea; this could have waited until the next season.

Paul S
02-08-2005, 09:00 AM
Congratulations to St George on winning the Open Division (unless the NSWCA decided to uphold Charles Z's appeal :lol: :P ,in which case the result is "on hold"). St George finished with 22.5 points ahead of Canterbury and Asquith (both 21.5 points). Might be worth mentioning that it looks like St George will win all 5 divisions this year - a great effort (they already have won 4 divisions and they have a 2.5 point lead going into the last round of the U1600 division).

Anyway, back to the Open Division......................

St George came first after the preliminary 7 rounds. Due to SAC's withdrawal, Canterbury and Asquith were disadvantaged in the finals series. Instead of 3 matches (12 games) there were only 2 matches (8 games), making it much more difficult for Asquith or Canterbury to catch St George. With only 2 matches it kind of defeats the purpose of a finals series - may as well just have declared the competition finished after the preliminary rounds of 7 round robin matches (which by the way I would have been happy with and is probably a fairer system - certainly it would create a lot less hassles!).

No doubt Bill will mention that SAC beat Canterbury 2.5-1.5 in their (now annulled) match, meaning that Canterbury winning the Open division was unlikely. So I will pre-empt this (and mention another problem with this years Open Division finals series). On the day of the SAC versus Canterbury match (about 5-6 hours before it was due to start), the Grade Matches Secretary could not get hold of Canterbury's Open Captain so he rang me and told me that the board order would be reversed for tonight's SAC versus Canterbury match. Being a typical U1600 player (eg I do not study chess books or prepare in advance for games), it did not enter my head at the time that Open Division players prepare for their games. As such I thought it sufficient just to contact Henk Jens (a Canterbry Open Division player) and let him know the situation and ask him to pass on this information when he got to tonight's match. The next week I had a chat with George Xie who told me that a major factor (but not the sole one) in the loss of his SAC game was that he was thrown off his game and unsettled as a result of the colour switch (which he only found out about just before his game started). If George had been warned about the colour switch a few hours beforehand, it is possible that SAC's 2.5-1.5 win may have been 2-2 or maybe even 2.5-1.5 to Canterbury.

Some more unsatisfactory aspects about the Grade Matches:
1) Rule 1.5 states that a player must be a permanent resident of NSW in order to play in the Grade Matches, but then it goes on to say that the NSWCA Council can give permission for non-NSW residents (such as Bjelobrk and Gil who played this year) to play. What is the point in having this rule if the NSWCA Council can override it at its whim?
2) I have been told that St George gets Ian Rogers to play as many matches as possible in advance (before he goes to play in tournaments overseas). Other clubs do this sort of thing too (eg the Bjelobrk-Xie match was played in advance before Igor headed back to Melbourne). St George, Asquith or any other club is quite entitled to do this, as rule 8.2 states that games can be played in advance. Much like with "agreed draws", I think this sort of thing is poor practice for a teams competition, but the fault for this lies with the NSWCA's rule 8.2, not with the clubs. I tend to agree with a couple of earlier posters in this thread that in a teams competition all games should be played on the scheduled night at the scheduled venue - in a teams competition the unavailability of a player on a particular night should be treated like an injured football player - just put in a replacement!
3) The fines for the clubs regarding non-NSWCA members are too severe. Preesently it is $10 per non-member per game up to a maximum of $25 per player. For non-members a fine structure of no charge for one game, $10 for 2 games and $25 for 3 or more games seems more reasonable. This year Canterbury U1600 had one of its 4 players pull out just before the competition started. Because of this I had to use 3 "reserves" to make up the 4th player during the competition and I know that other teams have been in similar positions over the years. The present structure of fines discourages clubs from using "emergency fill-in players" in situations such as what happened with this year's Canterbury U1600 team.

ursogr8
03-08-2005, 08:31 PM
But I was not wrong in St George thread and that is where it matters!

And where were you when people were trying to get the right thing done - certainly not helping!

a/c

Could you keep us up-to-date on this live issue too. (I presume this will also appear in the NSWCA Council minutes).

starter

antichrist
03-08-2005, 09:01 PM
a/c

Could you keep us up-to-date on this live issue too. (I presume this will also appear in the NSWCA Council minutes).

starter

I am waiting a reasonable time for the minutes to be completed, say two weeks. I don't expect anything radical to have occurred.

ursogr8
06-08-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
They could have agreed to a draw over the telephone.


we will have to make up a term for doing that - maybe the initials of the person who made it famous in this fiasco? In the meantime "phone-draw"

Would ratings puffery be a suitable name for a change of ratings without the need to play games?

antichrist
06-08-2005, 03:18 PM
Would ratings puffery be a suitable name for a change of ratings without the need to play games?

or just doing a "St George", I know they are pretty sensitive about it by the way - they did not like my jumb135 stint at all.

antichrist
08-08-2005, 04:31 PM
...
Sydney Chess Academy and St George shared the lead with two rounds to play in the open division finals. The NSWCA agreed with a suggestion regarding the pairings of the last two rounds by the St. George Leagues Club Captain. Sydney Chess Academy appealed the pairings - the appeal was rejected and the Sydney Chess Academy withdrew from the event - a very sad state of affairs.

Vlad
13-08-2005, 06:57 PM
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that nobody has noticed another fiasco of the organizers. Among 4 people who got board prizes, two players (Justin Tan and A. Flatow) played on the second board. I guess Raimond Song played on board 3 and finally Adrian Rose played on board 4. The question is what about board 1 and why are there two people from board 2??:)

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/open.htm

Bill Gletsos
13-08-2005, 07:44 PM
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that nobody has noticed another fiasco of the organizers. Among 4 people who got board prizes, two players (Justin Tan and A. Flatow) played on the second board. I guess Raimond Song played on board 3 and finally Adrian Rose played on board 4. The question is what about board 1 and why are there two people from board 2??:)

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/scarratt/open.htmBecause they are not board prizes but performance prizes as explained in the Grade Match booklet.

Vlad
17-08-2005, 12:25 PM
Whose great idea was that? Do you realize that it makes practically impossible to get a prize if you play on the first board?

arosar
17-08-2005, 12:50 PM
What is this business about Tindall not being given a prize?

AR

bergil
17-08-2005, 04:45 PM
What is this business about Tindall not being given a prize?

AR
Is that right? Well I guess they take his 2 games he didn't play in the semi's as loses and doesn't meet the 70% of wins in 70% of games played.

Or most likely because he withdrew for the competion.

Vlad
09-10-2005, 03:24 PM
I have had a conversation with some council members and it seems to me that they are still missing the point. The question that they asked me was - why did the SCA withdrew? They should have played on whatever has happened. They have punished themselves. Ok, let me answer this question.

One of the subjects that I teach at Sydney Uni is Game Theory for graduate students in economics. The situation that happened can be explained pretty well using Game Theory. The misunderstanding the council members have I believe is that the game is repeated.

So, the game has two periods but it is repeated potentially infinitely times. In the first period council had two strategies. The first one was to use the original draw or at least give SCA a fair go (strategy O) and the second one is to change the draw (strategy C). If the Council played O then nothing would happen and everybody would be happy. Nevertheless, the council played C.

In the second period SCA had two possible options. One is to withdraw (W), the other one is to continue playing (P). If SAC played P it would have pretty high chances of winning. If it played W then it would get nothing and could even be punished. Clearly the outcome from P was higher than the outcome from W. So why did the SCA withdraw?

The answer is that the same game is going to be played next year and year after. If the SCA did not withdraw then next year the council will do pretty much the same thing. THEY WOULD NOT THINK BEFORE THEY DO THINGS. Now, the SCA indicated that if the council will choose C in the future the SCA will keep playing W. Given extremely bad publicity the council received in recent months I do not think they will be able to afford to play C next year. So at the end of the day both SCA and the council are punished. However, I believe a very valuable lesson was taught.

One of the greatest chess players said once - “It is better to loose one game rather than to win 100.” The point is that it is important to learn from your own mistakes and not to repeat them. Personally I am not mad at the Council. I believe they are nice guys and have just been mislead by somebody very clever, somebody, who knows and uses Game Theory.

antichrist
09-10-2005, 03:35 PM
I am proud of them how they did not let themselves get used and abused.

Just how those Palestinians are also standing up for themselves. (sorry but not sorry)

Lucena
14-10-2005, 07:17 PM
please explain? It looks like you are replying to a deleted post

antichrist
14-10-2005, 11:16 PM
please explain? It looks like you are replying to a deleted post

Now Gareth, after your post I realise why I was able to get over you in that game of transfer

Javier Gil
11-12-2005, 04:17 PM
I have no intention of reopening this topic: I believe people have enough information and I'm sure most of them have their own opinion on the subject already.
Having said that, recently somebody drew my attention to the fact that perhaps the views that I expressed in this post had actually damaged GM Ian Rogers reputation, as he plays for St. George.
I'm writing this post to clarify that it is well known that at the time I raised my complaint GM Rogers (who as many of you know has played for my home team back in Spain several times and made a fabulous contribution to it) was overseas taking part in competitions and although I was aware that I could have contacted him by email, I did not because I think a player needs to focus all his energy on a competition and can't be disturbed about these matters when he's competing. Thus, I'm sure that he was not aware of the whole matter until much later. (as was the case with I.M.Zhao)
By making this statement, I'm not saying that I'm sure Ian would have had one opinion or another, I'm just saying that I'm sure his contribution would have been of great help in resolving the matter in a peaceful way and if I hadn't commented on this earlier on it was because I assumed most people knew it already.

I.M. Javier Gil.