PDA

View Full Version : Box Hill Open 2005



Frank Walker
22-08-2005, 07:45 PM
2005 Box Hill Open
Entries are open to all those prepared to pay the entry fee (up to the field limit) as set out below.
7 Round Swiss in two divisions.
Field is limited to 120 players.
Rate of play: 75 minutes plus 30 seconds per move from move one.
ACF rated.
Early bird entry fee $20
Early bird entries must be paid by Tuesday September 6
Full entry fee $30
Full fee entries close 7.30 PM Friday September 16 at the Box Hill Chess Club
Visitors fee for non-BHCC members: $15
Free entry for GMs and IMs provided entries are received during the early bird entry period
Payments: Cash or Cheque to the Box Hill Chess Club Inc.
Enquiries: Trevor Stanning, tournament organiser.
Phone: 9898 7547
e-mail: trevors@bluep.com
7 rounds. Clocks start 7:45pm. Round 1 16/9
Round 2 23/9
Round 3 30/9
Round 4 7/10
Round 5 14/10
Round 6 21/10
Round 7 28/10

Prize fund $1300.including a $500 first prize.
Ratings prizes in 6 groups
Prizes will be shared equally between players on equal scores.
Title will be decided on count back if first place is shared.
Total Prize Fund $1300 Division A
$500 First
$200 Second
$200 for 3 Ratings prizes

Available to A division players only

Division B
$200 First
$200 for 3 Ratings prizes

Available to B division players only




Thats What it says on the Website, anyway :whistle:

Frank Walker
27-08-2005, 07:41 PM
Early bird fee is due September 6.

ursogr8
27-08-2005, 07:48 PM
Early bird fee is due September 6.

Twenty players have so far taken advantage of the significant Early Bird discount %.

starter

ursogr8
27-08-2005, 08:07 PM
This event appears to have been first held in 1971 and annually since then.

A list of winners can be viewed via this link to a cc.org post. (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=67653&postcount=89)

starter

ursogr8
05-09-2005, 06:02 PM
Twenty players have so far taken advantage of the significant Early Bird discount %.

starter

Early bird discount is still available, and 44 entrants have registered to date.

starter

antichrist
05-09-2005, 06:19 PM
are St George draws be permitted?

ursogr8
07-09-2005, 10:40 AM
Early bird discount is still available, and 44 entrants have registered to date.

starter

The early bird discounts deadline finished last night and notifications stand at 62 with the tourney due to start on the 16th of September.
I have passed the names to the weibye-guys and they ( the new entries) will appear updated in this list (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/entries.htm) .

starter

bobby1972
07-09-2005, 11:09 AM
will there be a 3rd prize this year because normaly there is only 1st and 2nd

ursogr8
07-09-2005, 02:18 PM
will there be a 3rd prize this year because normaly there is only 1st and 2nd

AP

All is revealed in our advertising flyer (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/event.htm) ;)

starter

bobby1972
09-09-2005, 01:34 PM
So No Third Prize Officially Why Is That So Hard To Say.look I Will Say It Again In This Turny There Is " No Third Prize"

ursogr8
09-09-2005, 02:08 PM
So No Third Prize Officially Why Is That So Hard To Say.look I Will Say It Again In This Turny There Is " No Third Prize"

Division A
$500 First
$200 Second
$200 for 3 Ratings prizes

Available to A division players only

Division B
$200 First
$200 for 3 Ratings prizes

Available to B division players only

bobby1972
09-09-2005, 02:37 PM
So No 3rd Prize .only Rating Prize.i Tell You I Know For A Fact That If You Come Third In This Turny You Get Nothing ,last Year 2 People Tied For First On 6 Points And 5.5 Points Got Nothing,some Body Got A Rating Prize On Lower Score ,i Will Say It Again In This Turny There Is" No 3rd Prize " This Is Not A Lie There Is No 3rd Prize Only 2 Prizes For Top Players That Is A Fact

Spiny Norman
09-09-2005, 03:05 PM
So No 3rd Prize .only Rating Prize.i Tell You I Know For A Fact That If You Come Third In This Turny You Get Nothing ,last Year 2 People Tied For First On 6 Points And 5.5 Points Got Nothing,some Body Got A Rating Prize On Lower Score ,i Will Say It Again In This Turny There Is" No 3rd Prize " This Is Not A Lie There Is No 3rd Prize Only 2 Prizes For Top Players That Is A Fact
Sorry, what's that again? There's so many camels in your CamelCaps I can Barely Make Out What You'Ve Written. ;)

bobby1972
09-09-2005, 03:11 PM
**************no Third Prize**************

Rincewind
09-09-2005, 03:35 PM
**************no Third Prize**************

Good title for a song.

ursogr8
10-09-2005, 09:00 PM
So No Third Prize Officially Why Is That So Hard To Say.look I Will Say It Again In This Turny There Is " No Third Prize"

hi AP

I have just been having a close look at the current 64 entrants to the 2005 Box Hill OPEN. And guess what..... :uhoh: .....if you entered right now my smiling friend, you would be the second-highest ranked player in the field. No need to concern yourself with the non-existent third prize given that you would have higher expectations. :cool:

starter

bobby1972
10-09-2005, 10:44 PM
hey coming third in this turny is very very hard ,thats just a fact thats why it should be something for it

Bereaved
11-09-2005, 08:12 PM
Hello everyone,

I have to admit that I agree with Bobby, having grown up in a Melbourne Based environment, when seeing the figures that you are collecting, prospectively, that there is no third prize.

Melbourne has a principle of returning 80% of entry fees, after the rating fees are paid, as prizes.

Why does Box Hill not do this?

Incidentally, what are the total number of prizes, not their amounts ( which are above somewhere ) in both divisions?

Take care and God bless, Macavity

ursogr8
11-09-2005, 10:02 PM
Hello everyone,

I have to admit that I agree with Bobby, having grown up in a Melbourne Based environment, when seeing the figures that you are collecting, prospectively, that there is no third prize.
hi MP
More than 68 entrants so far. Less than a handful of visitors. Can you advise what the prospective collection figure you have computed for your post?


Melbourne has a principle of returning 80% of entry fees, after the rating fees are paid, as prizes.

Our annual subscriptions are $65 for full and $50 for concessional. Can you advise your MCC subscription rates?

Somewhere along the line our collections have to cover $6000 in rent for the year.

Why does Box Hill not do this?
I will await your next post and then will answer your question.
Btw, all entrants on or before last Tuesday (around 62 I think) paid $20 early bird. If we take out the $5 rating fee, as you suggest, collections are around $15 x 62 = $930. Announced prize fund is $1300. We may do better than your 80%.


Incidentally, what are the total number of prizes, not their amounts ( which are above somewhere ) in both divisions?

I thought the flyer, quoted previously as a link, gave this?


Take care and God bless, Macavity

tks
----------------------

A group of strong players from another Melbourne Club represented strongly to us that if $500 was presented as first prize then we would be greatly rewarded by entries from many Melbourne Clubs. We are in our fourth or fifth tournament offering $500 as first prize. I think the evidence is the opposite of what was represented to us. The $500 is not proving an attraction.
And unlike CV we cannot run events at a loss and cross-subsidize from elsewhere; thus the high first prize is at the expense of a third place prize, to some extent.

Incidentally, I invite you to look at the 115 player event in 2001 and look at first and third prize through this link. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2001/e0109fop/results.htm)


starter

Bereaved
11-09-2005, 10:22 PM
hi MP
More than 68 entrants so far. Less than a handful of visitors. Can you advise what the prospective collection figure you have computed for your post?



Our annual subscriptions are $65 for full and $50 for concessional. Can you advise your MCC subscription rates?

Somewhere along the line our collections have to cover $6000 in rent for the year.

I will await your next post and then will answer your question.
Btw, all entrants on or before last Tuesday (around 62 I think) paid $20 early bird. If we take out the $5 rating fee, as you suggest, collections are around $15 x 62 = $930. Announced prize fund is $1300. We may do better than your 80%.



I thought the flyer, quoted previously as a link, gave this?



tks
----------------------

A group of strong players from another Melbourne Club represented strongly to us that if $500 was presented as first prize then we would be greatly rewarded by entries from many Melbourne Clubs. We are in our fourth or fifth tournament offering $500 as first prize. I think the evidence is the opposite of what was represented to us. The $500 is not proving an attraction.
And unlike CV we cannot run events at a loss and cross-subsidize from elsewhere; thus the high first prize is at the expense of a third place prize, to some extent.

Incidentally, I invite you to look at the 115 player event in 2001 and look at first and third prize through this link. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2001/e0109fop/results.htm)


starter


Hi starter,

Firstly, the tournament suggested that the maximum entry was to be 120.

Most of your events ( well done to you on this note :clap: ) seem to have about 100 entries. If we even take away 70 as your early entries, we are still left with another 30 paying sic.$25( $30 minus rating fee) which is $750 on top of your previous 70 entries collected sic.$1050 ( 70 x $20 - $5 rating fee ) That leaes a total of $1800, which 80% of is $1440, which is much the same as at MCC, and also is a safe figure as far as ensuring no catastrophic loss on the event.

MCC memberships at the moment are $150 full and $100 concession. I cannot remember what the Junior Membership is but will post when I find out.

As far as the other club which suggested the money amount for first, have a fair idea, quite a really good idea who this is, and am not surprised at there being an expressed interest to this issue, and am equally unsurprised at the result from them at the least in this issue.

congratulations, if they are indeed due on the rumour of a new set of clubrooms for you!!

Oh and yes, had not read flier closely enough

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

DoroPhil
11-09-2005, 10:56 PM
$500 won't attract anybody simply because it will be always taken out by your Froehlichs, Gluzmans and the like. If the tournament was, say, under2300 it would have attracted many more rank and file players who would then have at least some chance of walking away with the money.

Bereaved
11-09-2005, 11:05 PM
$500 won't attract anybody simply because it will be always taken out by your Froehlichs, Gluzmans and the like. If the tournament was, say, under2300 it would have attracted many more rank and file players who would then have at least some chance of walking away with the money.

Hi Dorophil,
You have re emerged?

Would you be eligible for this event if it were to be under 2300?

I think that those above this level are an incredibly small proportion of the chess playing community in Australia; even the Australian major has a 2150 cutoff,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS do you play in rated events in a club(s)?

Yours, M

Oh and perhaps some would play such events on the strength of it featuring titled players also?

ursogr8
12-09-2005, 08:54 AM
Hi starter,

Firstly, the tournament suggested that the maximum entry was to be 120.

Most of your events ( well done to you on this note :clap: ) seem to have about 100 entries. If we even take away 70 as your early entries, we are still left with another 30 paying sic.$25( $30 minus rating fee) which is $750 on top of your previous 70 entries collected sic.$1050 ( 70 x $20 - $5 rating fee ) That leaes a total of $1800, which 80% of is $1440, which is much the same as at MCC, and also is a safe figure as far as ensuring no catastrophic loss on the event.

Good morning mac

I expected a bit more of a sheepish retraction from you given the tone of your 80% sentence in the original post. Perhaps you were not being accusative?


MCC memberships at the moment are $150 full and $100 concession. I cannot remember what the Junior Membership is but will post when I find out.

More than double ours. :eek:
Now, if I was being accusative, I would ask where does that go? But, don't answer that...it is MCC business.


As far as the other club which suggested the money amount for first, have a fair idea, quite a really good idea who this is, and am not surprised at there being an expressed interest to this issue, and am equally unsurprised at the result from them at the least in this issue.

I thought you could work out who represented the idea to us. ;)


congratulations, if they are indeed due on the rumour of a new set of clubrooms for you!!
Bird in the bush at the moment.


Oh and yes, had not read flier closely enough

As Bill says at such moments...> Do I look like your research assistant. :P


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

I am OD'g on these mate.


starter

ursogr8
12-09-2005, 09:05 AM
$500 won't attract anybody simply because it will be always taken out by your Froehlichs, Gluzmans and the like. If the tournament was, say, under2300 it would have attracted many more rank and file players who would then have at least some chance of walking away with the money.

Phil O'dor, you are back. :eek:

I guess you decided the Magog from the GONG was just huffing and puffing eh?

The exact data follows
2005 Championship
$500 to Peter Froehlich

2005 Autumn Cup
$750 shared between Domagoj Dragicevic, Dimitri Partsi, Tuan Le

2004 OPEN
$650 shared by Peter Froehlich and Sam Chow


Maybe you are correct that Peter Froehlich or Darryl Johansen in the field does not attract the players rated around 2100-2300.
But how do you explain players who represent the idea to us being <2000, and then become no-shows. :confused:


starter

ursogr8
15-09-2005, 08:58 AM
The 2005 Box Hill OPEN starts tomorrow night, Friday 16th.
Entries will be accepted until 7.30 pm.
$1300 in prizes.
$500 first prize.

(Details in the first post on this thread, or view here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/event.htm) )


starter

Garvinator
15-09-2005, 09:10 AM
[B]The 2005 Box Hill OPEN starts tonight.
shouldnt that be tomorrow night :hmm:

arosar
15-09-2005, 09:20 AM
Good title for a song.

:lol:

Let's write the lyrics!

AR

ursogr8
16-09-2005, 08:20 AM
The 2005 Box Hill OPEN starts tonight, Friday 16th.
Entries will be accepted until 7.30 pm.
$1300 in prizes.
$500 first prize.

Currently 72 entries with the most recent being IM Peter Froehlich.

(Details in the first post on this thread, or view here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/event.htm) )


starter

ursogr8
16-09-2005, 09:09 PM
The 2005 Box Hill OPEN starts tonight, Friday 16th.
Entries will be accepted until 7.30 pm.
$1300 in prizes.
$500 first prize.

Currently 72 entries with the most recent being IM Peter Froehlich.

(Details in the first post on this thread, or view here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/event.htm) )


starter

Final entry count was 94 (5 after the deadline).
Pairings went on the noticeboard 6 minutes after the announced starting time. (How's that Congenial Amigo....not bad for one arbiter eh?)

First game to finish was Nikolayevsky v Wallis ......White played the Nimzo opening and the rook on a1 suffered early.

6 females in the field.
1 IM
Plenty with very long names.
The HACCHE man also.
Feature game....Schon v Raine.
No third prize.
Nemeth and Dragicevic welcome additions.


starter

Rincewind
16-09-2005, 11:39 PM
Feature game....Schon v Raine.

Why is this a feature game? Schon, Raine always draw, come rain, hail or shone.

antichrist
17-09-2005, 02:31 AM
:lol:

Let's write the lyrics!

AR
No third prize
was the cry
when the guy
who had put up his place
for a place bet on a race
that some contestants couldn't face

so the third
for that nag
meant his dreams
had hit a snag

so he slept on a bench
in a park with no fence
with a sign that read
seven nags in a race
doesn't pay third for a place

four four two
17-09-2005, 02:40 AM
Australias chess balladeer... :clap:

ursogr8
17-09-2005, 09:38 AM
Why is this a feature game? Schon, Raine always draw, come rain, hail or shone.

hi Baz

My weekly bulletin usually has the title; upsets from upstarts; and particularly in round 1 it is difficult to find these due to junk round influences.
This game looked to be the most likely because the lag effect on junior rating has one of these players on my radar.
Even a draw would be a good result for the bulletineer.
And draws can teeter on the balance point during the game and thus be a feature.

But Baz :eek: , you have caught me out. :clap: :clap:

I have wasted all this typing, when in fact your post was an extremely clever pair puns. Well done. In fact ...can I borrow your gem for the bulletin?

I reminded of the old saying "As I go through life, I make this my goal; watch the donut, not the hole."

regards
starter

Rincewind
17-09-2005, 09:53 AM
My weekly bulletin usually has the title; upsets from upstarts; and particularly in round 1 it is difficult to find these due to junk round influences.
This game looked to be the most likely because the lag effect on junior rating has one of these players on my radar.
Even a draw would be a good result for the bulletineer.
And draws can teeter on the balance point during the game and thus be a feature.

Yes with the 400 point differential a draw would be a good result for Eugene. But don't keep me in suspense what was the result? My prediction was based on some very quick net research of which some results were rapid games.


But Baz :eek: , you have caught me out. :clap: :clap:

I have wasted all this typing, when in fact your post was an extremely clever pair puns. Well done. In fact ...can I borrow your gem for the bulletin?

I reminded of the old saying "As I go through life, I make this my goal; watch the donut, not the hole."

Oh, now I get it. Well the "i" and "o" are very close on my keyboard. ;) You're welcome to include my typo in your bulletin without attribution.

ursogr8
17-09-2005, 11:53 AM
<snip>
Oh, now I get it. Well the "i" and "o" are very close on my keyboard. ;) You're welcome to include my typo in your bulletin without attribution.

Baz

I have been doing a correspondence course (some call it a distance-learning course) in BillLogic201.
Now, looking at your sentence above, if I do include it with attribution :uhoh: , then you are not actually saying that that action is 'welcome', unwelcome', nor 'ambivalent'; are you? ;)

starter

ps I have it by word of mouth this morning that the result was a
DRAW

Rincewind
17-09-2005, 12:20 PM
I have been doing a correspondence course (some call it a distance-learning course) in BillLogic201.
Now, looking at your sentence above, if I do include it with attribution :uhoh: , then you are not actually saying that that action is 'welcome', unwelcome', nor 'ambivalent'; are you? ;)

No I'm saying take it, hold it and love it as if it were your own.


ps I have it by word of mouth this morning that the result was a
DRAW

Well quick net research pays off. ;)

ursogr8
17-09-2005, 04:37 PM
Bulletin for round 1 of the Box Hill OPEN for 2005.

Eighty-nine players entered the tournament by the close of entries (7.30pm) and the pairings were on display 6 minutes after the scheduled start time of 7.45pm. An additional 4 players were accepted into the tournament as late entrants (after 7.30pm) and were separately paired with opponents (manually, instead of SWISS pairing rules). Thus 93 entrants to date.

The field was strengthened significantly by Domagoj Dragicevic and John Nemeth and they showed their class by getting early winning positions.
The first upset occurred on board 3 when the second seed blundered in a very advantageous position and let one of previous years upstarts take the full point. Devrim van Dijk 1-0 David Hacche.

I forecast that board 7, Eugene Schon v Marcus Raine would be a feature game due to Eugene’s recent form improvement; and so it happened with a draw the eventual result.

The game on board 16 was eagerly watched as newcomer Hong Lin from NSW was paired with Steven Doon from Dandenong; but the rating-differential was too much for the local.

Early in the evening there was a rash of calls for Arbiter action from players who were zealous about their opponents writing the move before playing the move. The recent rule change appeals apparently.
Board 20 saw the first real breakthrough for an upset by an upstart. This guy is one of my favourite upstarts and Shane Lawson found that you cannot give away material to Samuel Dalton.

Simon Takouridis had his best result since joining the Club as he accounted for Alan Elliott, nearly 400 points higher; board 22. And on board 25, fresh from asking me if she won a trophy, or ‘sumfink’, in the recent Winter INTERCLUB, Susan Sheng scored a fine win over life member Eric Neymanis; similar rating-differential.

Zhong Hao Gan had to be arm-twisted into entering but he must be pleased by the early upset of David Creedon, who to be fair is returning after an extended break. Oliver Lemmel had a good win over Vladimir Zacharczenko who has been in good form recently. Micro-junior Andrew Gurevich arrived a little late but was able to spot 400 rating points to Laurence Matheson and still prevail.

And there you have it. I have made you wait to the end to read the best bit; the competitive index of this (two division intermingled SWISS) round 1 was 380 (games involving an unrated player excluded).

Provisional pairings for round 2 have been made and will be published by the weibye-guys soon. Any player wishing to lock in their provisional pairing (so that they can prepare for their round 2 game) should follow the instructions on the web-site . (Bulletin; round 1 of the Box Hill OPEN for 2005.)


Ps RM Beattie is well-known for McTaggart’s reason; but he is not playing in the OPEN





http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/

Mischa
17-09-2005, 06:05 PM
a draw...:)

four four two
18-09-2005, 01:51 PM
What is McTaggarts reason Starter? :hmm:
Beattie is currently playing in 2 tournaments at the moment,that may explain why he isnt in the BoxHill open. ;)

ursogr8
20-09-2005, 12:25 PM
Pairings for round 2 of the 2005 Box Hill OPEN are available on the web-site through this link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round2.htm) . They are provisional pairings, as described on the web-site.

'starter' predictions on the top 10 boards
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]


I expect no draw.


starter

Rincewind
20-09-2005, 02:01 PM
'starter' predictions on the top 10 boards
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]

Are these starter's predictions or Prof Glickman's? :hmm:

Go out on a limb starter. Surely one of these 1700 player can hold their higher rated opponents to a draw at least. The question is: which one?

ursogr8
20-09-2005, 02:16 PM
Are these starter's predictions or Prof Glickman's? :hmm:

Go out on a limb starter. Surely one of these 1700 player can hold their higher rated opponents to a draw at least. The question is: which one?

Baz
The pairings are not made for the titlillation of the spectators, but for the challenge to the players. The adopted SWISS pairings therefore suffer (a little) in the first two rounds from predictability of outcome. I have written on this lack of competition before and can refer you to a thread for extra reading if you are interested. :uhoh:

Board 7 contains an unknown capability since one is from the Welshpool.
Board 4 could have the outcome you yearn for, as I have coached booboo since he was last paired similarly. ;)


starter

ps I am predicting a draw on board 23. Both players are prone to wait for the penalty shoot-out (at the time-control point) (little realising that with DGTs and increments it does not eventuate any more ;) )

Frank Walker
20-09-2005, 08:58 PM
12 Hacche, David 2084 [0] : Schön, Eugene 1555 [.5]
Looks interesting...
Heard alot about this kid, ... depending on your idea of a kid
:hmm:

Mischa
20-09-2005, 09:40 PM
He and marcus always draw... ALWAYS...hmmmm

Bereaved
20-09-2005, 10:33 PM
Has he played Hacche before, Mischa?

What was the result in that case?

Oh, and Frank, he is about 10-11 years old

Take care and God Bless, Malcolm

Bill Gletsos
20-09-2005, 10:56 PM
Has he played Hacche before, Mischa?

What was the result in that case?

Oh, and Frank, he is about 10-11 years oldHe is 11 1/2.

DoroPhil
20-09-2005, 10:57 PM
Froehlich must lose. Somebody just have to beat him.

Why would he enter the tournament where the next highest rated player is rated more than 250 points below him? His presence kills the intrigue.

Can he be payed not to play?

ursogr8
21-09-2005, 08:11 AM
Froehlich must lose. Somebody just have to beat him.

Why would he enter the tournament where the next highest rated player is rated more than 250 points below him? His presence kills the intrigue.

Can he be payed not to play?

1997 Guy West
1998 Domagoj Dragicevic
1999 Mirko Rujevic
2000 Samuel Chow
2001 Dimitri Partsi
2002 Denis Bourmistrov
2003 Tuan Le
2004 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)
2005 In progress (1 round played)

ursogr8
21-09-2005, 10:21 AM
Pairings for round 2 of the 2005 Box Hill OPEN are available on the web-site through this link (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round2.htm) . They are provisional pairings, as described on the web-site.

'starter' predictions on the top 10 boards
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]


I expect no draw.


starter

Two late entrants have slightly altered the provisional draw.
Board 10 game is now
10 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1] : Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [1]

and Baz, nil draws is still my prediction....which is not Prof Glick's theory at all. ;)

The new pairings now available on the ...web-site (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round2.htm) .


starter

PHAT
21-09-2005, 01:41 PM
He is 11 1/2.

Breach of confidentially!

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Breach of confidentially!Incorrect.
His age and in fact his DOB have previously been publically available.

DoroPhil
21-09-2005, 06:10 PM
1997 Guy West
1998 Domagoj Dragicevic
1999 Mirko Rujevic
2000 Samuel Chow
2001 Dimitri Partsi
2002 Denis Bourmistrov
2003 Tuan Le
2004 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)
2005 In progress (1 round played)

Um, relevance?

Looking at the list of winners it's rather obvious that if Mr. Froehlich entered any of the tournaments in years 1998 and 2000-2003 then the list could look something like:

1998 Peter Froehlich
2000 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)
2001 Peter Froehlich
2002 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Denis Bourmistrov)
2003 Peter Froehlich
2004 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)

But there was no Mr. Froehlich in those years. And there were also no $500 prize. Now we have both. Coincidence?

And as it was previously pointed out, "there's no 3rd prize". And the player who finished 3rd last time round, decided not to enter this year. Coincidence?

ursogr8
21-09-2005, 08:30 PM
Um, relevance?

Well, to be honest Phil, I didn't quite know how to respond to your "can we pay him not to play"; so I thought I would put in a sophisticated 'err, um'; and see if you gave me more clues to your thinking. :uhoh: ;)


Looking at the list of winners it's rather obvious that if Mr. Froehlich entered any of the tournaments in years 1998 and 2000-2003 then the list could look something like:

1998 Peter Froehlich
2000 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)
2001 Peter Froehlich
2002 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Denis Bourmistrov)
2003 Peter Froehlich
2004 Peter Froehlich (on c/b from Sam Chow)

Probably; but you are a better judge than me.


But there was no Mr. Froehlich in those years. And there were also no $500 prize. Now we have both. Coincidence?
No co-incidence at all. As I said in another post (possibly another thread), the $500 was requested by two players in the 1980-2080 range....on the basis that if we put it out there then we would be knocked over in the rush of 2000-2250 players. As I detailed earlier, this is our 3rd or 4th try on the strategy.


And as it was previously pointed out, "there's no 3rd prize". And the player who finished 3rd last time round, decided not to enter this year.
But then he didn't play in the Autumn Cup (which was PF free), nor in Interclub (which was PF free). I am reminded of the line from the song..."Don't get around much anymore".



Coincidence?
So, no coincidence this time; given the evidence of the Autumn Cup.


The future prize fund policy is under review as the players who said they would attend have not. Clearly a third prize cannot be funded if a $500 top prize is awarded.
But it is likely to be a dead issue anyway in 2006 since we cannot find alternate premises less than about triple our current rent.

--------------------
You may also recall a discussion on this bb (one of the Mt B threads) where I asked Liberace in his experience how much it costs to get an IM to enter...at the end of a useful discussion Lee advised $500.


starter

Frank Walker
21-09-2005, 09:32 PM
Stop complaining, using your theory masters cant play in any tournament except championships

ursogr8
21-09-2005, 09:55 PM
^^ Presume directed to Dorophil.

Frank Walker
21-09-2005, 10:37 PM
Yup

Davidflude
21-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Great work Starter in getting the draw up.

I suspect that Rothlisberger will be after my blood as I beat him the last time we played with the Lasker Dunne line against the Sicilian.

I could only find one game of his on my database where he was black which is not much use to me.

Does anyone know what he plays as white?

Davidflude
21-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Comments on top ten boards

1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]

Peter is just too strong in all facets of the game.

2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]

Scott can play well. Domagoj has a tendency to mess up the opening and then outplay his opponents in the middle game. Scott has to gain a clear advantage in the opening to have a chance.

3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]

Dusan is probably still under rated. He keeps improving and improving. I do not like Reubban's chances.

4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]

Chris is another under rated junior. He could cause chaos throughout the tournament.

5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]

John is just too strong.

6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]

Again Thai is too strong.
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]

This game could be a surprise.

8 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]

This will go with the ratings

9 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]

No comments

10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]

Yachou is too strong and experienced.

Hacche versus Schon. Now and again David messes up in the opening. If he does Eugene will be steady enough to win. However the odds greatly favour
Hacche.

Still anything is still possible. The bad moves are all out there waiting to be played.

ursogr8
22-09-2005, 09:50 AM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS) rounds 1, 2 are 380, 270 (games involving an unrated player excluded).


starter






http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/

Bereaved
22-09-2005, 02:47 PM
Hi David,

I am not 100% but fairly confident that the last round game in the vic open between Rothlisberger and Hendrik?`( sorry can't remember his exact name, he is German, and FIDE 2200 ish) was A fianchetto king's indian and it quickly left the beaten paths. Seem to think that it may have started with 1 c4

Hope that helps,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Oh my brain is working again, his name was Hendrik Tabbat(?) sirname spelling close but maybe not perfect

ursogr8
22-09-2005, 10:11 PM
Illness and lack of transport have affected the provisional pairings.
We are now running with the following for the top 10 boards >
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schultzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]

ursogr8
23-09-2005, 04:50 PM
Illness and lack of transport have affected the provisional pairings.
We are now running with the following for the top 10 boards >
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] : Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] : Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] : Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] : Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] : Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] : Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] : Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schultzer, Peter 1633 [1] : Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] : Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]


New provisional pairings now loaded here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round2.htm)

ursogr8
23-09-2005, 09:13 PM
So far to date
> Hacche-Schon is an advance French. :cool:
>> A rash of early finishes by the micro-juniors....yet to learn value for money by playing and winning slowly :P
>>> A mobile phone sounded in the top 10 boards :eek:
>>>> Field now up to 97 with late entrants. :)
>>>>> Proof of that old rule....the one phone number you need is the one phone number not up to date on the members list. :rolleyes:


starter

WhiteElephant
23-09-2005, 09:19 PM
A mobile phone sounded in the top 10 boards :eek:
starter

Hi starter,

Can you disclose who it was? Did they forfeit their game?

ursogr8
23-09-2005, 09:31 PM
Hi starter,

Can you disclose who it was? Did they forfeit their game?

No. & No, just a warning.

Rincewind
24-09-2005, 12:27 AM
Any results?

ursogr8
24-09-2005, 10:09 AM
Any results?

Progressive only (a couple missing).
And text file only....no weibye-view yet.
( Baz...Just recvd via e-mail after my PM ;) )


regards
Trevor
---------------------------
1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [1] 1:0 Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
2 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1] 0:1 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [1]
3 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1] 0:1 Stojic, Dusan 2028 [1]
4 Wallis, Chris 2003 [1] 1:0 Liston, Howard 1746 [1]
5 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1] .5:.5 Nemeth, John 1994 [1]
6 Lycett, Garry 1682 [1] 1:0 Ly, Thai 1910 [1]
7 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [1] 1:0 Lin, Hong 1730 [1]
8 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] 0:1 Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [1]
9 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1] .5:.5 Flude, David 1705 [1]
10 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] 0:1 Yachou, Nur 1804 [1]
11 Raine, Marcus 1924 [.5] 1:0 Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [1]
12 Hacche, David 2084 [0] 1:0 Schön, Eugene 1555 [.5]
13 Glenton, Alan 1510 [0] 1:0 Lawson, Shane 1662 [0]
14 Whittick, Andrew 1416 [0] 0:1 Stones, Douglas 1614 [0]
15 Braham, Peter 1574 [0] 1:0 Xu, Mingda 1513 [0]
16 Doon, Steven 1404 [0] : Nikolayevsky, Artem 1571 [0]
17 Exner, Rolf 1557 [0] 1:0 Chong, Trevor 1432 [0]
18 Umber, George 1552 [0] .5:.5 Kocevic, Sanjin 1422 [0]
19 Burzic, Ramo 1538 [0] 1:0 Nannegari, Abishek 1412 [0]
20 Vijayakumar, Rengan 1398 [0] .5:.5 Wilson, Norm 1527 [0]
21 Yu, Derek 1520 [0] 0:1 Tang, Jason 1366 [0]
22 Nincevic, Anton 1308 [1] 1:0 Fielder, Shaun 1313 [0]
23 Khung, Farn Ling 993 [1] 0:1 Feng, Thomas 945 [0]
24 Dalton, Laurie 1233 [1] 1:0 Kulshitsky, Dmitry A 1001 [1]
25 Sanderson, Paul 982 [1] 0:1 Raviganesh, Surya 1212 [1]
26 Partridge, Matthew 1136 [0] 0:1 Ziffer, Rocheleh 1125 [0]
27 Feng, Tim 1100 [1] 1:0 Sheng, Susan 943 [1]
28 Gan, Zhong Hao 829 [1] 1:0 Yu, Sally 1073 [1]
29 Cuxson, Stuart 1059 [1] 0:1 Liu, Nicholas 931 [1]
30 Gurevich, Andrew 603 [1] 1:0 Indranada, Alaric 1057 [1]
31 Benjamin, Frank 1032 [1] 0:1 Takouridis, Simon 951 [1]
32 Liu, Yi 1025 [1] 1:0 Lemmel, Oliver 814 [1]
33 Cameron, James 1122 [.5] 1:0 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [.5]
34 Chen, Michael 682 [0] 0:1 Elliott, Alan 1308 [0]
35 Neymanis, Eric 1305 [0] 1:0 Chow, Keli 690 [0]
36 Podvorac, Zeljko 1201 [0] 1:0 Van Dijk, Marieke 667 [0]
37 Balachandran, Shananthan 640 [0] 0:1 Creedon, David 1145 [0]
38 Qin, Tomson 632 [0] 0:1 Matheson, Laurence 1030 [0]
39 Chan, Raymond 512 [0] 0:1 Simonov, Sasha 985 [0]
40 Balachandran, Mayurathan 401 [0] 0:1 Lauder, Natasha 946 [0]
41 Lyons, Linden 922 [0] 1:0 Wong, Nathan 601 [0]
42 Alfons, Bishoy 301 [0] 0:1 La, Jimmy 901 [0]
43 Lyons, Chris 851 [0] 1:0 Indranada, Broderic 507 [0]
44 Gray, Alan 797 [0] 1:0 Gibson, Kyle 101 [0]
45 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [1] 0:0 BYE

Davidflude
24-09-2005, 10:24 AM
Starter got 7 out of 9 correct. The other pairing was changed.

As they say the stronger team does not always win but that is the way to bet.

Rincewind
24-09-2005, 10:36 AM
As they say the stronger team does not always win but that is the way to bet.

It may be but it not what I want to read from the tipster columnists. Dog bites man is not news. ;)

Davidflude
24-09-2005, 10:39 AM
9 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1] : Flude, David 1705 [1] was a Boleslavski
variation of the sicilian defence. This is a really drawish line of the sicilian. If black knows what he is doing the game ends in a draw unless white gets it wrong. (This occurs a lot at the club level). It is a good line to play against higher rated players. The alternative is to play into the classical dragon with a mass of theory and either player can lose by playing the opening incorrectly.

four four two
24-09-2005, 11:28 AM
Yes, we need more Man bites Dog to get interested . ;)

Alan Shore
24-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Yes, we need more Man bites Dog to get interested . ;)

heh, Simpsons. ;)

Careth
24-09-2005, 09:51 PM
So in the Boleslavski variation, what causes it to be so drawish, and what is the line?(sounds interesting, and as a Sicilian player, might be a useful weapon for the arsenal:)).

ursogr8
26-09-2005, 08:42 AM
The crosstable for the 2005 Box Hill OPEN can be viewed through this link. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/crosstable.htm)

I guess it is relevant to ask how far down the seeds they could reasonably expect to collect a prize if the IM was not playing. :uhoh: ;) (Hint: macavity will be interested in one of the single digits).

The round 2 bulletin (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/news/sep.htm#26) can also be read on our web-site.

starter

Davidflude
26-09-2005, 09:05 AM
The Boleslavski is

1. e4 c5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cxd
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 d6
6. Be2 e5

Yes e5 is played one move later than in the Sveshnikov. This means 7.Nb5 is no longer a good option. Black plays to eventually force d5 which is usually followed by lots of exchanges and an ending where black has a slight edge. Dr John Nunn gives a good idea for white in his "Beating the Sicilian"books but antidotes have been found. (I am not revealing what they are).

Most Grandmasters play 6.Bg5 or 6.Bc4 or even 6.Be3 rather than 6.Be2

Careth
26-09-2005, 01:51 PM
Ah- another name for the Pelikan? Lol, I tried that at the Juniors this year. My queenside got smashed due to my inexperience, and then I would die a horrible horrible death. :boohoo: Its definately an opening I will have a look at later when I have improved my play.

Frank Walker
28-09-2005, 06:47 PM
Predictions


No Name Rtg Total Result Name Rtg Total

1 Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [2] .5:.5 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [2]
2 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [2] 1:0 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [2]
3 Stojic, Dusan 2028 [2] 1:0 Lycett, Garry 1682 [2]
4 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [2] 0:1 Wallis, Chris 2003 [2]
5 Yachou, Nur 1804 [2] 1:0 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1.5]
6 Nemeth, John 1994 [1.5] 0:1 Raine, Marcus 1924 [1.5]
7 Flude, David 1705 [1.5] 1:0 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1.5]
8 Stones, Douglas 1614 [1] 0.5:0.5 Hacche, David 2084 [1]
9 Ly, Thai 1910 [1] 1:0 Braham, Peter 1574 [1]
10 Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1] 1:0 Exner, Rolf 1557 [1]
11 Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [1] 0:1 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1]
12 Liston, Howard 1746 [1] 1:0 Burzic, Ramo 1538 [1]
13 Nikolayevsky, Artem 1571 [1] 0 :1 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1]
14 Lin, Hong 1730 [1] 0:1 Glenton, Alan 1510 [1]
15 Tang, Jason 1366 [1] .5:.5 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1]
16 Schön, Eugene 1555 [.5] 1:0 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1]
17 Wilson, Norm 1527 [.5] 0:1 Umber, George 1552 [.5]
18 Kocevic, Sanjin 1422 [.5] 1:0 Vijayakumar, Rengan 1398 [.5]
19 Lawson, Shane 1662 [0] .5:.5 Nincevic, Anton 1308 [2]
20 Yu, Derek 1520 [0] 1:0 Kloprogge, Ion 1305 [2]
21 Xu, Mingda 1513 [0] 1:0 Dalton, Laurie 1233 [2]
22 Chong, Trevor 1432 [0] 1: Feng, Tim 1100 [2]
23 Raviganesh, Surya 1212 [2] 0: Whittick, Andrew 1416 [0]
24 Nannegari, Abishek 1412 [0] .5:.5 Liu, Yi 1025 [2]
25 Takouridis, Simon 951 [2] 0:1 Doon, Steven 1404 [0]
26 Liu, Nicholas 931 [2] .5:.5 Mc Culloch, Rob 1401 [0]
27 Fielder, Shaun 1313 [0] 0:1 Gan, Zhong Hao 829 [2]
28 Gurevich, Andrew 603 [2] 1:0 Cameron, James 1122 [1.5]
29 Elliott, Alan 1308 [1] 1:0 Kulshitsky, Dmitry A 1001 [1]
30 Simonov, Sasha 985 [1] .5:.5 Neymanis, Eric 1305 [1]
31 Galiabovitch, Elena 1287 [1] 1:0 Khung, Farn Ling 993 [1]
32 Lauder, Natasha 946 [1] .5:.5 Podvorac, Zeljko 1201 [1]
33 Creedon, David 1145 [1] 0:1 Sanderson, Paul 982 [1]
34 Ziffer, Rocheleh 1125 [1] .5:.5 Lyons, Linden 922 [1]
35 Feng, Thomas 945 [1] 1:0 Tan, Patrick 1116 [1]
36 Yu, Sally 1073 [1] .5:.5 Lyons, Chris 851 [1]
37 Sheng, Susan 943 [1] 0:1 Cuxson, Stuart 1059 [1]
38 Indranada, Alaric 1057 [1] 1:0 Tan, Michael 849 [1]
39 La, Jimmy 901 [1] 1:0 Benjamin, Frank 1032 [1]
40 Matheson, Laurence 1030 [1] 0:1 Gray, Alan 797 [1]
41 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [.5] .5:.5 Lemmel, Oliver 814 [1]
42 Menon, Aditya 618 [0] .5:.5 Partridge, Matthew 1136 [0]
43 Zacharczenko, Vladimir 1133 [0] 1:0 Chan, Raymond 512 [0]
44 Chow, Keli 690 [0] 1:0 Balachandran, Mayurathan 401 [0]
45 Wong, Nathan 601 [0] .5:.5 Chen, Michael 682 [0]
46 Van Dijk, Marieke 667 [0] 0:1 Alfons, Bishoy 301 [0]
47 Indranada, Broderic 507 [0] 1:0 Balachandran, Shananthan 640 [0]
48 Gibson, Kyle 101 [0] 0:1 Qin, Tomson 632 [0]
49 Roche, Glen 801 [1] 0:0 BYE

DoroPhil
28-09-2005, 06:59 PM
Looking at the top 10 boards, I do tend to agree with Mr. Walker's predictions. Except for boards 1, 7 and 8. I predict 0-1 for all those boards.

Frank Walker
28-09-2005, 07:11 PM
You are just playing by the ratings, the ratings mean nothing, they are useless. we got people rated 600 beating people rated 1000 we got people rated 1600 beating people rated 2100 and we got people rated 1600 getting smashed in 11 moves.

THE RATING SYSTEM IS NOTHING!!

DoroPhil
28-09-2005, 07:50 PM
You are just playing by the ratings

Not really. For example, I predict that Nemeth-Raine might just go against ratings. Anyway, we'll see who gets more correct results ;)

DoroPhil
28-09-2005, 07:51 PM
THE RATING SYSTEM IS NOTHING!!

I wouldn't call rating system 'nothing'. I'd say it's 'something else'.

Vlad
28-09-2005, 08:35 PM
You are just playing by the ratings, the ratings mean nothing, they are useless. we got people rated 600 beating people rated 1000 we got people rated 1600 beating people rated 2100 and we got people rated 1600 getting smashed in 11 moves.

THE RATING SYSTEM IS NOTHING!!

It seems you need to take some statistics classes, mate. This is a classic proof that I call proof by example. But do not worry, you are in a good company; many students at uni make this mistake.:)

ursogr8
28-09-2005, 08:40 PM
This question probably belongs in Arbiters corner, but it relates to this tourney, so >

If you were DOP and an esteemed interstate visitor (rated 1900) fronted for just the third round of this 7 round OPEN, would you allow him to enter this tournament (for the one round)?


starter

Frank Walker
28-09-2005, 09:10 PM
Jason Hu right,
Yeh you should let him

Thunderspirit
28-09-2005, 10:20 PM
This question probably belongs in Arbiters corner, but it relates to this tourney, so >

If you were DOP and an esteemed interstate visitor (rated 1900) fronted for just the third round of this 7 round OPEN, would you allow him to enter this tournament (for the one round)?


starter

Your view on an esteemed player is a little generous for a player rated 1900, even if he is an improving junior. In a word I would say no. 1 round is not acceptable. The only exception would be filling a bye, but as that player is often much weaker this is probably no good for either player.

If the player was an IM how do U pair him/her. If U give that player 3/3 and the IM wins then the player leading has suffered a defeat that other players can't. (Even if the player on 3/3 said this was Ok, I was still be hesisate, but I'd probably give in, as you should give players what they want within reason.)

Hope this helps Trev...

ursogr8
28-09-2005, 10:26 PM
Your view on an esteemed player is a little generous for a player rated 1900, even if he is an improving junior. In a word I would say no. 1 round is not acceptable. The only exception would be filling a bye, but as that player is often much weaker this is probably no good for either player.

If the player was an IM how do U pair him/her. If U give that player 3/3 and the IM wins then the player leading has suffered a defeat that other players can't. (Even if the player on 3/3 said this was Ok, I was still be hesisate, but I'd probably give in, as you should give players what they want within reason.)

Hope this helps Trev...

tks Lee

'Esteemed' as in generally nice bloke, and likes playing chess....nothing to do with rating.

OK...the test case is not an IM.........his rating is 1900 approx. Does this change your view?

If it helps...here are the provisional pairings without the 'ring-in'. Look here for pairings. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round3.htm)

Thunderspirit
28-09-2005, 10:29 PM
tks Lee

'Esteemed' as in generally nice bloke, and likes playing chess....nothing to do with rating.

OK...the test case is not an IM.........his rating is 1900 approx. Does this change your view?

If it helps...here are the provisional pairings without the 'ring-in'. Look here for pairings. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round3.htm)


No. A 1900er adds little to an event for one night. I get on well with Jason Hu, but I think it causes my problems than it seeks to cure.

I appriciate that you value my opinion on arbitering matters.

four four two
28-09-2005, 10:34 PM
Why would you allow anyone to enter for 1 round? :hmm:

ursogr8
28-09-2005, 10:36 PM
No. A 1900er adds little to an event for one night. I get on well with Jason Hu, but I think it causes my problems than it seeks to cure.

I appriciate that you value my opinion on arbitering matters.

tks Lee for the extra consideration.

It does add a bit to our field in the sense that he is a Welshman. So get a bit of cross-polination across the ratings pool.

(Always value your opinion, even if we ignore it on some occasions. ;) )

Thunderspirit
28-09-2005, 10:41 PM
tks Lee for the extra consideration.

It does add a bit to our field in the sense that he is a Welshman. So get a bit of cross-polination across the ratings pool.

(Always value your opinion, even if we ignore it on some occasions. ;) )

Technically the player is U/R and so should 'technically' not be rated as a 2100 (for eg). And even if the player looses a small gain of 20 pts is so small is makes no difference...

As for ignoring me, and least U read.... ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2005, 10:49 PM
This question probably belongs in Arbiters corner, but it relates to this tourney, so >

If you were DOP and an esteemed interstate visitor (rated 1900) fronted for just the third round of this 7 round OPEN, would you allow him to enter this tournament (for the one round)?

No. Who could you reasonably pair such a player with? If they are paired with anyone significantly below their rating (which is logical for a player who is technically on 0/2) then it is unfair to that player, who would not expect to play such a strong opponent.

jase
29-09-2005, 12:23 AM
In the shoutbox starter wrote that this matter (of an esteemed visitor playing one round) was not about publicity.

What else is it about then? If you have an esteemed visitor there may be ways to incorporate them into club activities - I do not consider for a moment that playing one round of a tournament is one of them.

ursogr8
29-09-2005, 07:43 AM
No. Who could you reasonably pair such a player with? If they are paired with anyone significantly below their rating (which is logical for a player who is technically on 0/2) then it is unfair to that player, who would not expect to play such a strong opponent.

KB
Thanks for the response.
I intended to award 1.5 or 2 bonus points to the player so that they appeared in the cross-table at about the median point for performance-to-date of the 1800 to 2000 players in the tourney. To a degree an arbitrary approach of mine, but it does avoid the junk pairing that would come if I classed him as 0/2. In other words, I would be contriving a competitive, but fair, pairing for the non-blowins and the blowin. (There is a bonus field in SP that can be used to record the 1.5 or 2.)

So, in response to your direct question " Who could you reasonably pair such a player with? " I would allow SP pairing rules to operate and I would anticipate the blowin would be paired by SP against one of the 14 players listed on the top 7 boards that you can examine here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round3.htm)

regards, and valuing your further comment,
starter

ursogr8
29-09-2005, 07:45 AM
In the shoutbox starter wrote that this matter (of an esteemed visitor playing one round) was not about publicity.

What else is it about then? If you have an esteemed visitor there may be ways to incorporate them into club activities - I do not consider for a moment that playing one round of a tournament is one of them.
jase
Thanks for the response.
Could you expand on your suggestion of 'other ways'.


regards
starter

Gringo
29-09-2005, 12:20 PM
That's all we need, more opinions from an Arty-Farty Yak Head...

Ian Rout
29-09-2005, 12:29 PM
jase
Thanks for the response.
Could you expand on your suggestion of 'other ways'.


An "other way", if you must have the player play a rated game as some sort of exhibition, might be to find a player who is prepared to take a half-point bye in the tournament (if it is an early round), or a player who along with their opponent is prepared to defer their game (if club rules permit).

ursogr8
29-09-2005, 01:15 PM
An "other way", if you must have the player play a rated game as some sort of exhibition, might be to find a player who is prepared to take a half-point bye in the tournament (if it is an early round), or a player who along with their opponent is prepared to defer their game (if club rules permit).

Both suggestions of yours are quite valuable...tks Ian.
There are 28 ERGAS juniors in Melbourne at the moment; anywhere between 1 and 28 are possible to visit our Club on Friday night. I selected probably the most insightful test-case to table here for discussion, and I am appreciating the thoughts that are emerging. Some ideas don't easily 'scale-up' if, for example, I had 10 visitors wanting to play.

starter

ursogr8
29-09-2005, 04:30 PM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS)

rounds 1, 2, 3 are 380, 270, 274 (games involving an unrated player excluded).

For round 3, nine (9) players have intermingled from division B into division A opponents, as a consequence of the B's winning both round 1 and round 2 games and A's losing both.


starter






http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/

Frank Walker
30-09-2005, 11:12 PM
Results?

ursogr8
01-10-2005, 12:29 AM
1 Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [2] .5:.5 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [2]
2 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [2] 1:0 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [2]
3 Stojic, Dusan 2028 [2] 1:0 Lycett, Garry 1682 [2]
4 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [2] 0:1 Wallis, Chris 2003 [2]
5 Yachou, Nur 1804 [2] 1:0 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1.5]
6 Nemeth, John 1994 [1.5] 1:0 Raine, Marcus 1924 [1.5]
7 Flude, David 1705 [1.5] 0:1 Brooks, Chris 1717 [1.5]
8 Stones, Douglas 1614 [1] 0:1 Hacche, David 2084 [1]
9 Ly, Thai 1910 [1] .5:.5 Braham, Peter 1574 [1]
10 Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1] 0:1 Exner, Rolf 1557 [1]
11 Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [1] 0:1 Sharman, Scott 1764 [1]
12 Liston, Howard 1746 [1] .5:.5 Burzic, Ramo 1538 [1]
13 Nikolayevsky, Artem 1571 [1] 0:1 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [1]
14 Lin, Hong 1730 [1] 1:0 Glenton, Alan 1510 [1]
15 Tang, Jason 1366 [1] 1:0 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1]
16 Wilson, Norm 1527 [.5] 1:0 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1]
17 Kocevic, Sanjin 1422 [.5] -:+ Vijayakumar, Rengan 1398 [.5]
18 Lawson, Shane 1662 [0] 1:0 Umber, George 1552 [.5]
19 Yu, Derek 1520 [0] 1:0 Kloprogge, Ion 1305 [2]
20 Lemmel, Oliver 814 [1] 0:1 Dalton, Laurie 1233 [2]
21 Chong, Trevor 1432 [0] 1:0 Feng, Tim 1100 [2]
22 Raviganesh, Surya 1212 [2] 0:1 Whittick, Andrew 1416 [0]
23 Kinder, Jessica 1272 [0] .5:.5 Liu, Yi 1025 [2]
24 Takouridis, Simon 951 [2] 1:0 Doon, Steven 1404 [0]
25 Liu, Nicholas 931 [2] 0:1 Mc Culloch, Rob 1401 [0]
26 Fielder, Shaun 1313 [0] 1:0 Gan, Zhong Hao 829 [2]
27 Gurevich, Andrew 603 [2] 0:1 Nincevic, Anton 1308 [2]
28 Elliott, Alan 1308 [1] 0:1 Cameron, James 1122 [1.5]
29 Kulshitsky, Dmitry A 1001 [1] 1:0 Neymanis, Eric 1305 [1]
30 Galiabovitch, Elena 1287 [1] 1:0 Khung, Farn Ling 993 [1]
31 Simonov, Sasha 985 [1] 0:1 Podvorac, Zeljko 1201 [1]
32 Creedon, David 1145 [1] 1:0 Sanderson, Paul 982 [1]
33 Ziffer, Rocheleh 1125 [1] .5:.5 Lauder, Natasha 946 [1]
34 Feng, Thomas 945 [1] .5:.5 Tan, Patrick 1116 [1]
35 Yu, Sally 1073 [1] 1:0 Lyons, Linden 922 [1]
36 Sheng, Susan 943 [1] 1:0 Cuxson, Stuart 1059 [1]
37 Indranada, Alaric 1057 [1] 1:0 Lyons, Chris 851 [1]
38 La, Jimmy 901 [1] 1:0 Benjamin, Frank 1032 [1]
39 Matheson, Laurence 1030 [1] .5:.5 Tan, Michael 849 [1]
40 Zacharczenko, Vladimir 1133 [0] 1:0 Menon, Aditya 618 [0]
41 Gibson, Kyle 101 [0] 0:1 Chan, Raymond 512 [0]
42 Wong, Nathan 601 [0] .5:.5 Chen, Michael 682 [0]
43 Van Dijk, Marieke 667 [0] 1:0 Balachandran, Mayurathan 401 [0]
44 Indranada, Broderic 507 [0] 0:1 Balachandran, Shananthan 640 [0]
45 Alfons, Bishoy 301 [0] 1:0 Qin, Tomson 632 [0]
46 Schön, Eugene 1555 [.5] 0:0 BYE
47 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [.5] 0:0 BYE
48 Roche, Glen 801 [1] 0:0 BYE
49 Gray, Alan 797 [1] 0:0 BYE
50 Chow, Keli 690 [0] 0:0 BYE
51 Partridge, Matthew 1136 [0] 0:0 BYE
52 Nannegari, Abishek 1412 [0] 0:0 BYE

ursogr8
05-10-2005, 10:30 AM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS)

rounds 1, 2, 3, 4 are 380, 270, 274, 306 (games involving an unrated player excluded).

For round 3, 4, (9), (7) players have intermingled from division B into division A opponents, as a consequence of the B's winning early games and A's losing early.

Provisional round 4 pairings available here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round4.htm)

starter

ps The top seed is not on 3/3.........I wonder if DOROPHIL's interest is re-piqued? :hmm:

four four two
05-10-2005, 11:59 AM
Just a quick question Starter,were all the people with byes in Ergas squad? :hmm:

ursogr8
05-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Just a quick question Starter,were all the people with byes in Ergas squad? :hmm:

1 pair was a postponed game advised before the start of entries.
2 were authorised absences due to school holidays
2 were unauthorised absences, probably due to school holidays
1 was an authorised absence due to illness

These played their catch-up game last night.
All other absences are zero point byes.

See earlier post for 14 ERGAS members played on the Friday night (after 3 games during the day).

ursogr8
08-10-2005, 01:41 PM
1 Wallis, Chris 2003 [3] 0:1 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [3]
2 Yachou, Nur 1804 [3] 0:1 Stojic, Dusan 2028 [3]
3 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [2.5] 1:0 Nemeth, John 1994 [2.5]
4 Brooks, Chris 1717 [2.5] 0:1 Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [2.5]
5 Hacche, David 2084 [2] 1:0 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [2]
6 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [2] 1:0 Tang, Jason 1366 [2]
7 Lycett, Garry 1682 [2] .5:.5 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [2]
8 Sharman, Scott 1764 [2] .5:.5 Lin, Hong 1730 [2]
9 Exner, Rolf 1557 [2] 1:0 Ly, Thai 1910 [1.5]
10 Raine, Marcus 1924 [1.5] 0:1 Vijayakumar, Rengan 1398 [1.5]
11 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1.5] 0:1 Schön, Eugene 1555 [1.5]
12 Braham, Peter 1574 [1.5] 0:1 Liston, Howard 1746 [1.5]
13 Burzic, Ramo 1538 [1.5] 0:1 Flude, David 1705 [1.5]
14 Whittick, Andrew 1416 [1] 0:1 Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [1]
15 Creedon, David 1145 [2] 0:1 Lawson, Shane 1662 [1]
16 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [1] 1:0 Chong, Trevor 1432 [1]
17 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1] 0:1 Stones, Douglas 1614 [1]
18 Nincevic, Anton 1308 [3] 0:1 Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [1]
19 Dalton, Laurie 1233 [3] 0:1 Nikolayevsky, Artem 1571 [1]
20 Takouridis, Simon 951 [3] 1:0 Yu, Derek 1520 [1]
21 Glenton, Alan 1510 [1] 1:0 Fielder, Shaun 1313 [1]
22 Umber, George 1552 [.5] 0:1 Cameron, James 1122 [2.5]
23 Liu, Yi 1025 [2.5] 1:0 Yu, Sally 1073 [2]
24 Galiabovitch, Elena 1287 [2] .5:.5 Indranada, Alaric 1057 [2]
25 Doon, Steven 1404 [0] 0:1 Kulshitsky, Dmitry A 1001 [2]
26 Feng, Tim 1100 [2] 1:0 Kloprogge, Ion 1305 [2]
27 Sheng, Susan 943 [2] .5:.5 He, Wen Dan 1301 [0]
28 Gan, Zhong Hao 829 [2] 1:0 Tan, Michael 849 [1.5]
29 Podvorac, Zeljko 1201 [2] 1:0 Liu, Nicholas 931 [2]
30 Tan, Patrick 1116 [1.5] 1:0 Gurevich, Andrew 603 [2]
31 Lauder, Natasha 946 [1.5] 0:1 Matheson, Laurence 1030 [1.5]
32 Neymanis, Eric 1305 [1] 0:1 Feng, Thomas 945 [1.5]
33 Lyons, Chris 851 [1] 0:1 Elliott, Alan 1308 [1]
34 Chan, Raymond 512 [1] 0:1 Zacharczenko, Vladimir 1133 [1]
35 Benjamin, Frank 1032 [1] 1:0 Lemmel, Oliver 814 [1]
36 Khung, Farn Ling 993 [1] 1:0 Gray, Alan 797 [1]
37 Balachandran, Shananthan 640 [1] 0:1 Simonov, Sasha 985 [1]
38 Sanderson, Paul 982 [1] 0:1 Van Dijk, Marieke 667 [1]
39 Lyons, Linden 922 [1] 1:0 Alfons, Bishoy 301 [1]
40 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [.5] 1:0 Wong, Nathan 601 [.5]
41 Chen, Michael 682 [.5] 0:1 Partridge, Matthew 1136 [0]
42 Chow, Keli 690 [0] 1:0 Indranada, Broderic 507 [0]
43 Kocevic, Sanjin 1422 [.5] 1:0 Balachandran, Mayurathan 401 [0]
44 Menon, Aditya 618 [0] 1:0 Gibson, Kyle


starter

Rincewind
08-10-2005, 02:04 PM
A few upsets in round 4, starter. Any commentary?

ursogr8
08-10-2005, 04:51 PM
A few upsets in round 4, starter. Any commentary?

As (nearly) always Baz I have written a weekly bulletin for major events at BHCC. The Round 4 bulletin has been sent to the weibe-meister already already.

Like the resident BLOGGER here (where is he by the way;since he has gotten that BLOG we miss his acerbic one-liners) I prefer to update the main repository, and then save some band-width here by posting
WEB-SITE UPDATED.
If you authorise for this week I will post here now? :uhoh:


starter

ursogr8
12-10-2005, 02:16 PM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS)

rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are 380, 270, 274, 306, 277 (games involving an unrated player excluded).

For round 3, 4, 5, (9), (7), (9) players have intermingled from division B into division A opponents, as a consequence of the B's winning early games and A's losing early.

Provisional round 5 pairings available here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round5.htm )

starter

Frank Walker
15-10-2005, 08:53 AM
Ooh, Simon Takourdis, 951 is on 4/4 if he won last night he might have to play against Domagog or Dusan, or someone rated 1700-2000 on less than 3 ponts

ursogr8
15-10-2005, 11:10 AM
Ooh, Simon Takourdis, 951 is on 4/4 if he won last night he might have to play against Domagog or Dusan, or someone rated 1700-2000 on less than 3 ponts

If, Frank, if.

But reality kicked in and the fast-improving Simon met a nemesis.


starter

ursogr8
15-10-2005, 11:24 AM
No Name Loc Total Result Name Loc Total

1 Dragicevic, Domagoj 2106 [4] 1:0 Stojic, Dusan 2028 [4]
2 Hacche, David 2084 [3] 0:1 Froehlich, Peter 2376 [3.5]
3 Vijayakumar, Rukman 1837 [3.5] .5:.5 Wallis, Chris 2003 [3]
4 Exner, Rolf 1557 [3] 0:1 Yachou, Nur 1804 [3]
5 Nemeth, John 1994 [2.5] .5:.5 Stojic, Svetozar 1862 [3]
6 Rothlisberger, Marcel 1832 [2.5] 1:0 Brooks, Chris 1717 [2.5]
7 Flude, David 1705 [2.5] 0:1 Sharman, Scott 1764 [2.5]
8 Liston, Howard 1746 [2.5] 1:0 Lycett, Garry 1682 [2.5]
9 Lin, Hong 1730 [2.5] 0:1 Schön, Eugene 1555 [2.5]
10 Vijayakumar, Rengan 1398 [2.5] 0:1 Krawcheni, Andrei 1780 [2]
11 Muthusamy, Reubban 1743 [2] 0:1 Van Dijk, Devrim 1584 [2]
12 Lawson, Shane 1662 [2] 1:0 Takouridis, Simon 951 [4]
13 Nikolayevsky, Artem 1571 [2] 1:0 Schulzer, Peter 1633 [2]
14 Stones, Douglas 1614 [2] .5:.5 Glenton, Alan 1510 [2]
15 Tang, Jason 1366 [2] 0:1 Raine, Marcus 1924 [1.5]
16 Narenthran, Tharmaratnam 1811 [1.5] 1:0 Kocevic, Sanjin 1422 [1.5]
17 Cameron, James 1122 [3.5] 0:1 Braham, Peter 1574 [1.5]
18 Liu, Yi 1025 [3.5] 0:1 Dalton, Samuel 1348 [1]
19 Wilson, Norm 1527 [1.5] .5:.5 Burzic, Ramo 1538 [1.5]
20 Yu, Derek 1520 [1] 0:1 Nincevic, Anton 1308 [3]
21 Chong, Trevor 1432 [1] 0:1 Dalton, Laurie 1233 [3]
22 Kulshitsky, Dmitry A 1001 [3] 0:1 Whittick, Andrew 1416 [1]
23 Mc Culloch, Rob 1401 [1] 0:1 Gan, Zhong Hao 829 [3]
24 Fielder, Shaun 1313 [1] 1:0 Feng, Tim 1100 [3]
25 Podvorac, Zeljko 1201 [3] 1:0 Galiabovitch, Elena 1287 [2.5]
26 Feng, Thomas 945 [2.5] .5:.5 Umber, George 1552 [.5]

27 Matheson, Laurence 1030 [2.5] 0:1 Tan, Patrick 1116 [2.5]
28 Indranada, Alaric 1057 [2.5] 0:1 Sheng, Susan 943 [2.5]
29 Simonov, Sasha 985 [2] 0:1 Doon, Steven 1404 [0]
30 Elliott, Alan 1308 [2] 1:0 Benjamin, Frank 1032 [2]
31 Kloprogge, Ion 1305 [2] 1:0 Khung, Farn Ling 993 [2]
32 Van Dijk, Marieke 667 [2] 0:1 Creedon, David 1145 [2]
33 Zacharczenko, Vladimir 1133 [2] .5:.5 Lyons, Linden 922 [2]
34 Yu, Sally 1073 [2] 1:0 Gurevich, Andrew 603 [2]
35 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [1.5] .5:.5 Liu, Nicholas 931 [2]
36 Tan, Michael 849 [1.5] 0:1 Meldau, Henning 1527 [0]
37 Balachandran, Shananthan 640 [1] 1:0 Neymanis, Eric 1305 [1]
38 Partridge, Matthew 1136 [1] 0:1 Chow, Keli 690 [1]
39 Alfons, Bishoy 301 [1] 0:1 Lyons, Chris 851 [1]
40 Lemmel, Oliver 814 [1] 1:0 Menon, Aditya 618 [1]
41 Gray, Alan 797 [1] 1:0 Chan, Raymond 512 [1]
42 Qin, Tomson 632 [0] .5:.5 Chen, Michael 682 [.5]
43 Wong, Nathan 601 [.5] 1:0 Indranada, Broderic 507 [0]
44 Balachandran, Mayurathan 401 [0] 0:1 Gibson, Kyle 101 [0]
45 He, Wen Dan 1301 [.5] .5:.5 Rozenblat, Vanja 1147 [2.5]

ursogr8
15-10-2005, 06:24 PM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS)

rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are 380, 270, 274, 306, 277, 258 (games involving an unrated player excluded).

For round 3, 4, 5, 6, (9), (7), (9), (9) players have intermingled from division B into division A opponents, as a consequence of the B's winning early games and A's losing early.



starter

ursogr8
15-10-2005, 09:24 PM
Ooh, Simon Takourdis, 951 is on 4/4 if he won last night he might have to play against Domagog or Dusan, or someone rated 1700-2000 on less than 3 ponts

I have had a closer look at your concern here Frank.
In the round 5 pairings Simon could only have been paired with an A Division player on 2 or 2.5 points (remember, A Division players have a permanent acceleration of 2 points in this two division tournament).
In round 5, no B's floated to the A's on 2.5.
Hence Simon was going to have an A opponent on 2. The two highest rated candidates were Reubban Muthuamy and Shane Lawson (and as we know, Simon got the latter, and lost. Shane is rated less than 1700).

starter

ursogr8
16-10-2005, 09:48 AM
1 Box Hill OPEN round 5 results are here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round5.htm)




2 ROOKIES and QUEENS Cup 7 round Allegro on today (Sunday). Close of entries 12.30. Cash prizes for adults, trophies for rating groups for youngsters.


starter

Rincewind
16-10-2005, 09:55 AM
2 ROOKIES and QUEENS Cup 7 round Allegro on today (Sunday). Close of entries 12.30. Cash prizes for adults, trophies for rating groups for youngsters.

Unfortunate timing. Last round of the Vic Championships is also on today.

ursogr8
16-10-2005, 03:04 PM
Unfortunate timing. Last round of the Vic Championships is also on today.

Baz

Thirty six players.
Two canteen helpers.
One recorder.
Two players higher rated than the Flavoured Dude.
Chicken and salad for lunch.
Confusion (initially) on how to get the cross-table to sort by rating order instead of score order.

The B-Team is handling it rather well.

starter

four four two
16-10-2005, 03:10 PM
Has anyone withdrawn from the box hill open starter? :hmm:

ursogr8
16-10-2005, 06:44 PM
Has anyone withdrawn from the box hill open starter? :hmm:

It is not unusual 4/4/2.

Exams.
Visits to Kathmandu.
Voluntary and involuntary.
Pique.
Honeymoon.

We have had them all over the years.
What did you have more specifically in mind?


starter

ursogr8
20-10-2005, 05:18 PM
Provisional pairings have been amended this afternoon due to absence of one of the high-rated seeds.
New provisional pairings are here to be seen. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round6.htm)


starter

ursogr8
22-10-2005, 05:43 PM
Standings going into the last round of the 2005 Box Hill OPEN are >


1 Froehlich, Peter A 2376 5.5
2-5 Dragicevic, Domagoj A 2106 5
Stojic, Dusan A 2028 5
Yachou, Nur A 1804 5
Podvorac, Zeljko B 1201 5
6-10 Takouridis, Simon B 951 4.5
Nincevic, Anton B 1308 4.5
Wallis, Chris A 2003 4.5
Liston, Howard A 1746 4.5
Tan, Patrick B 1116 4.5
11-18 Dalton, Laurie B 1233 4
Gan, Zhong Hao B 829 4
Feng, Tim B 1100 4
Hacche, David A 2084 4
Yu, Sally B 1073 4
Nikolayevsky, Artem A 1571 4
Lawson, Shane A 1662 4
Vijayakumar, Rukman A 1837 4

A = A Division
B = B Division


starter

ursogr8
23-10-2005, 01:53 PM
Access through here, (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round6.htm) to view the results of Friday's games.

Board 26
26 Doon, Steven 1404 [1] 0:1 Yu, Sally 1073 [3]
was a sensational result, in my view.

The game that finished last, and hence drew a sizeable audience, was also an upset.
32 Gray, Alan 797 [2] 1:0 Hiew, Flinder 1092 [2]

starter

firegoat7
23-10-2005, 06:05 PM
Access through here, (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round6.htm) to view the results of Firday's games.

Board 26
26 Doon, Steven 1404 [1] 0:1 Yu, Sally 1073 [3]
was a sensational result, in my view.


:clap: :clap: This backs up her section win in the Victorian tournaments, no doubt a big talent! :clap:

cheers fg7

ursogr8
24-10-2005, 07:15 AM
The competitive indexes calculated for this (two division intermingled SWISS)

rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are 380, 270, 274, 306, 277, 258, 286. (games involving an unrated player excluded).

For round 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (9), (7), (9), (9), (11) players have intermingled from division B into division A opponents, as a consequence of the B's winning early games and A's losing early.



starter

ursogr8
26-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Round seven pairings...slightly changed due to absence of a high seed.

Link through here. (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/round7.htm)


starter

Frank Walker
29-10-2005, 09:43 AM
Who was the winner?
Are here any full results? :hmm:

kveldulv
29-10-2005, 10:32 AM
Who was the winner?
Are here any full results? :hmm:
Full results now on the Box Hill Site: 2005 Box Hill Open Results (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2005/e0509fop/results.htm)