PDA

View Full Version : Should Aus Champs qualifying rules be changed?



Denis_Jessop
18-09-2005, 02:21 PM
I think one of the key points people here are missing is that the 2150 cutoff clearly discriminates against people who live in nsw and victoria, if your rating is 2100 your chance of winning a state championship is VERY small. In the case of victoria ,depending on who enters in any given year a player with a 2100 rating might not even qualify for the state championship. Armen Aghamalyan[2094], Domagoj Dragicevic[2106] and David Hacche[2084] would all be worthy players for the Australian championships,they are not pushovers by any stretch of the imagination. I personally think the cut off should be 2050,this would give alot of players whether they live in WA or are juniors a fair go. As for Tasmania, with such a small pool of players you are going to have to come to the mainland and get some scalps ,begonias your best annual option,if you are to have any national credibility. :whistle:

Perhaps the ACF needs to reconsider the cut-off level. It used to be 2100 but was raised to 2250 when the bonus 150 points were added to our ratings a few years ago. Oddly, the result was that only 27 players qualified for the next closed Championship on rating so the Council reduced it to 2150.

To reduce the cut-off to say 2050 raises the question of perhaps making the event too "open" and, in turn, the question whether there ought to be a "closed" Championship at all.

Certainly, it's embarrassing this year as the organisers of the Closed Championship are getting a number of overseas enquiries from people who want to play in Queenstown and would like to play here en route. I am taking steps to accommodate these special circumstances. They are at present before the Council for consideration.

DJ

Garvinator
18-09-2005, 02:33 PM
Perhaps the ACF needs to reconsider the cut-off level. It used to be 2100 but was raised to 2250 when the bonus 150 points were added to our ratings a few years ago. Oddly, the result was that only 27 players qualified for the next closed Championship on rating so the Council reduced it to 2150.
why was the rating number reduced? 27 players is an ok number and with the state champions etc would make close to 32 players. That is good.

Also since the 150 uplift, there has now been the 70 points added too, so surely it should be raised.

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:38 PM
To reduce the cut-off to say 2050 raises the question of perhaps making the event too "open" and, in turn, the question whether there ought to be a "closed" Championship at all.


So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?

Thunderspirit
18-09-2005, 02:40 PM
So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?

I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...

Garvinator
18-09-2005, 02:41 PM
I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...
the act champs could be one of the qualifying events :whistle:

jenni
18-09-2005, 02:50 PM
I disagree. If I ever fluke a win in the ACT Champs, I want my day in sun. I'd fight to kingdom come to get in too...

You could still build in some safeguards so that each state has to have one rep in the Aus Champs.

What about GM's and IM's over 2300 get in automatically, if a state doesn't have a rep at the end of the exercise, they can enter their state champion. The final places are allocated by a series of qualifying tournaments.

Seems fairer to me than the current rating cut off. Also has the extra bonus of creating more chess activity. Of course it has the downside of extra tournaments to organise and would people demand prize-money, or would they be happy to play for the honour of getting entry to the Aus Champs? Could keep entry fees to the bare minimum if you are only looking to pay for a few small costs like Dop fees, rating fees and stationery.

Alan Shore
18-09-2005, 03:30 PM
why was the rating number reduced? 27 players is an ok number and with the state champions etc would make close to 32 players. That is good.

Also since the 150 uplift, there has now been the 70 points added too, so surely it should be raised.

27 players qualify.. meaning like maybe 8 would show up (not enough - the Aus Masters was a disappointing field, don't do it to the Champs too). If you raised the cutoff you'd also get an even bigger potential discrepancy in strength between state champions.

four four two
18-09-2005, 04:23 PM
Liberace by the time you win the ACT champs you will be 2050 anyway,which under my preferred cut off point would make you eligible anyway. ;) As regards to ratings,I was talking about CLUB players,as opposed to juniors who mainly play in closed junior tournaments.If someone scores 30% you shouldnt be rated 800,you can only get a really low rating while playing reasonably well by playing in those closed junior tournaments. ;)

Denis_Jessop
18-09-2005, 07:58 PM
So what do you think of the concept of having some qualifying tournaments? It would certainly get rid of these endless arguements about whether someone rated 2080 who plays regularly is better than an inactive player with a 2102 rating?

What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

DJ

jenni
18-09-2005, 08:42 PM
What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

DJ

Sounds good to me - gets rid of all the bitterness and hard done by feelings.

Garvinator
18-09-2005, 09:44 PM
What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

DJ
this reply seems to take the option, oh it is difficult, so lets just get rid of it. The Australian Championship has a long history and is supported by all the top players, unlike the australian open. To change that just because a few players might be unhappy with the current regulations would be a mistake.

antichrist
18-09-2005, 10:39 PM
this reply seems to take the option, oh it is difficult, so lets just get rid of it. The Australian Championship has a long history and is supported by all the top players, unlike the australian open. To change that just because a few players might be unhappy with the current regulations would be a mistake.

I think 2150 is an excellent cut-off point, it shows a player is in form and reached that higher level as different to coasting along at 2050. In the strong chess states there are so many players rated over 2150 that there is ample opportunity for under 2150-rated players to earn their stripes.

To avoid players rated slightly over 2150 but inactive blocking out lower-rated active players it could be introduced that they have to had to play in at least one high level comp in the past twelve months.

pax
19-09-2005, 11:41 AM
I think one of the key points people here are missing is that the 2150 cutoff clearly discriminates against people who live in nsw and victoria, if your rating is 2100 your chance of winning a state championship is VERY small.

Hmm, there is only *one* player rated over 2150 in the NSW Championships, and only two over 2100. Looks like an excellent opportunity to me.

four four two
19-09-2005, 11:44 AM
Antichrist,if you are an active player with our rating system then you cant be "coasting" along,you in fact have to be in good form even to keep your rating above 2000. :P ;)

four four two
19-09-2005, 11:51 AM
Pax,if Gary Lane ,JP Wallace,George Xie, and Zhong Zhao had have entered the NSW champs then a 2100 would have realistically no chance of winning,hell even Canfell would have a tough time winning it. :P ;) :owned:

pax
19-09-2005, 11:58 AM
What I am suggesting tentatively is that the qualification rules for a restricted entry tournament cause so much wasting of time on these kinds of discussions that I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year. It's already much of the way there as there is no limit on the number of players and in the last couple, at least, several players have been let in whose rating was well below the cut-off and the present by-laws allow the ACF to invite anyone it wants to play. Thus with the current Closed event actually Semi-open why not go the whole way?

DJ

I think that's a really bad idea.

My impression is that in general the closed Championships attract a higher percentage of Australia's top players (with the occasional exception). It also generally carries much greater prestige than the Open.

Another significant point, is that the Closed Championships is one of very few events where title norms are realistically possible, because all the players are of a minimum standard, and nearly all have (reasonably high) FIDE ratings. In an open, a title aspirant may play as many as four "dud" games against unrated players, and has much lower chance of playing against enough titled players.

Finally, I would say that you should speak to many top Australian players (as I'm sure you plan to) before suggesting such a dramatic change to current arrangements.

Pax

p.s Perhaps a thread split is in order?

four four two
19-09-2005, 12:13 PM
A thread split is in order pax, :lol: ,but the admins havnt got around to it yet.. ;) Im not sure Denis was saying the Australian champs should be a totally open event,just that the current criteria should be up for review . Hopefully Denis will clarify this position in a future post. :confused:

Rincewind
19-09-2005, 12:32 PM
but the admins havnt got around to it yet.. ;)

Technically speaking, it is the mods who haven't got around to it yet. ;)

jenni
19-09-2005, 12:36 PM
Technically speaking, it is the mods who haven't got around to it yet. ;)

that should have been the mods who hadn't got around to it - given you posted after the thread split.....

four four two
19-09-2005, 12:43 PM
Thanks for creating the new thread Denis,but what is the ACF's current position on the qualifying rules? Is there going to be a vote on possible changes? For people to trust the system on qualifying there has to be clear transparency,at this point in time that doesnt seem to be the case. Some people seem to be qualifying simply by the people that they know. :hmm:

four four two
19-09-2005, 12:45 PM
Well i was inside the thread, so i was unaware it had been split. :P ;)

Rincewind
19-09-2005, 12:48 PM
that should have been the mods who hadn't got around to it - given you posted after the thread split.....

Thanks, Jenni. You're worth more money.

bobby1972
19-09-2005, 02:49 PM
Every Year The Samething,its 2150 And That Is It,it Should Be 11 Round Robin No Rabbits.

four four two
19-09-2005, 03:06 PM
Are you a rabbit Bobby?,youre under 2150 and have beaten a number of the qualifiers. If my memory serves me correctly you finished equal fifth at last years Australian open. :hmm: :hmm:

antichrist
19-09-2005, 03:09 PM
Antichrist,if you are an active player with our rating system then you cant be "coasting" along,you in fact have to be in good form even to keep your rating above 2000. :P ;)

But you have to be better to keep it above 2150>!

Roughly speaking I see <2150 as Sydney Sydney Easter Cup material and 2150> as Doberl and Aust Champ material. An excellent cut-off point.

bobby1972
19-09-2005, 03:12 PM
Thanks Man ,but Its Hard To Be 2150+ I For One Have Never Been Close.

four four two
19-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Antichrist ,ill give a reason why our current cut off mark is bad for australian chess. Britain has 33 GMs,in this years british championship there were 46 players,some of whom were only 2100 elo. If the british were to run their champs like ours they would only invite the top 20 GMs and tell the rest to shove off. One of the reasons why they have 33 GMs is that they allow the 2200-2400 players MANY oppurtunities to play GMs in a closed tournament. In australia if you are 2000-2100 your oppurtunities of playing against IMs in a closed tournament is VERY limited,how do you expect players who are 2050 to get games against these people?There are only 4 open tournaments most years where 2000-2100 can clock up some games against people who are over 2200, and even then you have to travel interstate.If Britain,one of the top chess nations in the world,can have a reasonable amount of flexibility in their championships why cant we? :hmm: :hmm:

Spiny Norman
19-09-2005, 03:47 PM
It also helps that they have 3 times our population crammed into a state the size of Victoria. Thus its a lot easier to get good competition close to home ...

pax
19-09-2005, 03:51 PM
In my opinion, the most important thing is to have the tournament field small enough to guarantee that the top few players will get at least six games against the top ten players. For an 11 round swiss, a field size of about 30 is about right.

pax
19-09-2005, 03:53 PM
Im not sure Denis was saying the Australian champs should be a totally open event..



... I can't see why the Championship isn't an Open every year.

:hmm:

pax
19-09-2005, 03:58 PM
I have to say that if you are in the business of making IM level players (or higher), adults rated under 2150 are not your priority. The only players in that range with top echelon potential are the rapidly improving juniors who are often given special exeptions to play in the Championships anyway.



In australia if you are 2000-2100 your oppurtunities of playing against IMs in a closed tournament is VERY limited,how do you expect players who are 2050 to get games against these people?There are only 4 open tournaments most years where 2000-2100 can clock up some games against people who are over 2200, and even then you have to travel interstate.If Britain,one of the top chess nations in the world,can have a reasonable amount of flexibility in their championships why cant we? :hmm: :hmm:

Carl Gorka
19-09-2005, 04:04 PM
You could still build in some safeguards so that each state has to have one rep in the Aus Champs.

What about GM's and IM's over 2300 get in automatically, if a state doesn't have a rep at the end of the exercise, they can enter their state champion. The final places are allocated by a series of qualifying tournaments.

Seems fairer to me than the current rating cut off. Also has the extra bonus of creating more chess activity. Of course it has the downside of extra tournaments to organise and would people demand prize-money, or would they be happy to play for the honour of getting entry to the Aus Champs? Could keep entry fees to the bare minimum if you are only looking to pay for a few small costs like Dop fees, rating fees and stationery.

In the UK there are qualifying tournaments for the British Champs which is a closed event. The quaifying events are opens from the already established weekend circuit, so no new tournaments had to be introduced. It means that those tournaments that are ch qualifiers turn into decent events even if they're a bit out the way, and the Championship itself is a good mix of titled players and lesser mortals.....well, it usually is when it isn't held on the Isle of Man :lol: The British ch usually attracts about 70-90 players, all who have qualified through some criteria...rating, county nomination, junior squad nomination, or qualifying events.

Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

Denis_Jessop
19-09-2005, 04:34 PM
I've made two postings on this thread as it now is, prompted originally by a suggestion about the cut-off rating figure of 2150.

In the first I suggested that the ACF should perhaps reconsider the qulaifications for the closed Championship and in both I suggested that perhaps the event should just be an Open every year, prompted in part by the discussions with various conflicting opinions about the qualification rules, discussions that are likey no matter what the rules are. But, where I said that I can't see why it isn't, I prefaced that by a reference to a "tentative suggestion".

To put it shortly, there were a lot of postings on the thread as it then was criticising various aspects of the current qualification rules and I thought I'd like to know what sort of reception an open every year would get and also what other positive suggestions for change, not mere opposition to the existing rules, would appear.

The ACF Council has not expressed any views on the matter for some years as it has not been placed before it.

I have one or two comments on points made so far.

First, the suggestion for an open every year was definitely not just a reaction to the closed rules that they pose problems that are too hard. The issue is rather what is the point of having a closed event?

One opinion put is that the closed event has greater prestige and is more favoured by the stronger players. That is something on which I should like to see some evidence - at present it is more a perception (with which I don't necessarilly disagree as such).

Another point made was that a closed event more easily enables Title norms to be earned. This is true in theory but, if the current qualifying rules are strictly applied, norms wouldn't be available because the entry would not satisfy FIDE's requirements about diversity. To do that one has to do as is being done this year and invite overseas titled players to enter. This, arguably, does away with the preferred character of the event.

Anyway, I am glad to see interest in the issue and look forward to some more views on it.

DJ

Carl Gorka
19-09-2005, 04:42 PM
Another point made was that a closed event more easily enables Title norms to be earned. This is true in theory but, if the current qualifying rules are strictly applied, norms wouldn't be available because the entry would not satisfy FIDE's requirements about diversity. To do that one has to do as is being done this year and invite overseas titled players to enter. This, arguably, does away with the preferred character of the event.

Anyway, I am glad to see interest in the issue and look forward to some more views on it.

DJ

I thought each country could nominate an event per rating period that didn't need overseas reps....maybe I'm wrong, but if so, the Aus Champs could allow players to achieve norms without any foreign players if it is the ACF's nominated event.

Ian Rout
19-09-2005, 05:06 PM
Anyway, I am glad to see interest in the issue and look forward to some more views on it.

DJ
Making the Championship an Open would of course avoid the problem of deciding who qualifies but at a fairly extreme cost, namely killing the Championship. Or as Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible - but not any simpler".

If there is a good reason for doing away with the restricted Championship, then fine. But the fact that somebody complains that they didn't qualify, or might not qualify, is not a good reason. The AFL manages to run a competition without allowing anybody with seventeen friends automatic right of entry. Ditto League, Union, tennis, golf and pretty much any other sport I can think of. Fun Runs are about the only events that are completely unrestricted.

pax
19-09-2005, 06:02 PM
I've made two postings on this thread as it now is, prompted originally by a suggestion about the cut-off rating figure of 2150.


Since this seems to be directed at me, I'd better reply!



In the first I suggested that the ACF should perhaps reconsider the qulaifications for the closed Championship and in both I suggested that perhaps the event should just be an Open every year, prompted in part by the discussions with various conflicting opinions about the qualification rules, discussions that are likey no matter what the rules are. But, where I said that I can't see why it isn't, I prefaced that by a reference to a "tentative suggestion".


Sorry for the brief quote. I didn't mean to imply that it was any more than a suggestion, but 442 seemed not to have read your post properly.



One opinion put is that the closed event has greater prestige and is more favoured by the stronger players. That is something on which I should like to see some evidence - at present it is more a perception (with which I don't necessarilly disagree as such).


To gauge this, you obviously need to ask Australia's elite players for their perspective. At a minimum, perhaps an informal approach to all the active IMs and GMs.

A brief look at recent history however shows a massive gap:

The 04/05 Open had five Australian players over 2300 (counting Igor), and six over 2200. The 03/04 closed had 10 over 2300 and 21 over 2200. 02/03 (open) had five over 2300, and the same five over 2200 (inc Froelich). 01/02 (closed) had something like 11 players over 2300 and about 25 over 2200. Even the very popular Canberra Open (with many overseas players) in 00-01 had only about 7 Australian players over 2300, and 10 over 2200.

It seems to me that the closed events are overwhelmingly favoured by the top players, and especially the 2200-2300 bracket.



Another point made was that a closed event more easily enables Title norms to be earned. This is true in theory but, if the current qualifying rules are strictly applied, norms wouldn't be available because the entry would not satisfy FIDE's requirements about diversity. To do that one has to do as is being done this year and invite overseas titled players to enter. This, arguably, does away with the preferred character of the event.


Actually, I believe national championships are exempt from the federations rule:



1.43 Federations of opponents.
At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included, except for 1.43a-1.43e.
1.43a The finals (but not preliminaries) of national men`s championships and also national women`s championships. See 1.43b1.

antichrist
19-09-2005, 06:47 PM
Antichrist ,ill give a reason why our current cut off mark is bad for australian chess. Britain has 33 GMs,in this years british championship there were 46 players,some of whom were only 2100 elo. If the british were to run their champs like ours they would only invite the top 20 GMs and tell the rest to shove off. One of the reasons why they have 33 GMs is that they allow the 2200-2400 players MANY oppurtunities to play GMs in a closed tournament. In australia if you are 2000-2100 your oppurtunities of playing against IMs in a closed tournament is VERY limited,how do you expect players who are 2050 to get games against these people?There are only 4 open tournaments most years where 2000-2100 can clock up some games against people who are over 2200, and even then you have to travel interstate.If Britain,one of the top chess nations in the world,can have a reasonable amount of flexibility in their championships why cant we? :hmm: :hmm:

I understand, well about 6 months ago I was talking about organising finance so that we can pay about 3 GMs from 3rd world countries to come here for about a year plus meet the other criteria so that keen locals could earn their norms etc.. But many of my ideas don't get taken seriously. So I have done one tourney every year at Easter and I just stick to that.

four four two
19-09-2005, 08:22 PM
I dont think anyone is seriously advocating that the australian championship should be an open event,the main debate is about what the cutoff point should be . Can anyone seriously suggest that a player who is 2100 is significantly weaker than someone who is 2150,Domagoj Dragicevic was 2149 on the old list and 2106 on the new list.He has lost rating points because he is active,should he be punished for being active?,should he have simply stopped playing tournaments for 6 months? Surely we want players like Domagoj,who has beaten Ian Rogers and not on time! ;) , to be active tournament players,dont we? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2005, 09:18 PM
In practice those who are close to the cutoff who apply tend to make it if there is any case that they may be stronger than the cutoff. It's only when they're clearly not up to scratch that they tend to get knocked back.

All this talk about favouritism is just groundless as far as I know. Does anyone want to name a player who applied for the Champs and was knocked back under this rule who they think should have got in?

antichrist
19-09-2005, 09:38 PM
I dont think anyone is seriously advocating that the australian championship should be an open event,the main debate is about what the cutoff point should be . Can anyone seriously suggest that a player who is 2100 is significantly weaker than someone who is 2150,Domagoj Dragicevic was 2149 on the old list and 2106 on the new list.He has lost rating points because he is active,should he be punished for being active?,should he have simply stopped playing tournaments for 6 months? Surely we want players like Domagoj,who has beaten Ian Rogers and not on time! ;) , to be active tournament players,dont we? :hmm:

But he also lost points because presumably he lost to lower-rated players and would have lost to higher-rated players we could presume. Not playing is not really an option, because when they do enter comps they are out of match practise and probably lose, only not to lower players so don't lose much.

firegoat7
19-09-2005, 10:38 PM
All this talk about favouritism is just groundless as far as I know. Does anyone want to name a player who applied for the Champs and was knocked back under this rule who they think should have got in?

Jamie Hislop
David Hacche
Brian Jones
Alan Goldsmith

Mike Woodhams never applied but he is a very interesting case. For those not in the know Mike Woodhams is a Box Hill player who represented Australia at the Olympiads (he also won a gold medal? I think but don't quote me on that). He unfortunately took a break from chess and was rated at 1900 when he returned (take it up with the ACF rating officer). I like to watch his games because he was a quality player and noticed that after about six monthes he started improving again. Then unfortunately he took another break although I notice he played some games recently in Interclub.

I think it is an absolute tragedy that Australian Chess does not encourage these players to play. Just having players of Woodhams quality in tournaments can only be of benefit for Australian chess. These type of players are capable of holding their own in quality company, but unfortuantely we seem to want to send them to the scrap heap.

These type of players deserve more opportunities then just ratings to play in strong chess tournaments. They deserve dynamic qualifying places, so that when they take breaks, they can actually aim for realistic goals when they come back. I say this because its better having them play then not play. Playing for rating is not enough incentive.


cheers Fg7

PHAT
19-09-2005, 10:47 PM
It never cesses to amaze me just how utterly wed to tradition, the chess world is - with this thread providing a perfect example.

Define the problem.
1. Need to crown someone as the Australian Champion.
2. Need to have the best players playing the best players.
3. Need to complete in 11 days with FIDE ratibility.
4. Want to any player to compete, who has a chance of a top 10 finish.
5. Want lotsa money from fees from lotsa players, to fund a chunky prize.

Solution:
Tornament is a 15 round Swiss.
1 days x 4 rounds of 60 minutes +30 seconds
then
9 days x 1 round of 90 minutes +30 seconds
The first 4 rounds will put all genuine contenders in the top 10.
The first 4 rounds are not FIDE rated.
The last 9 rounds will see all the genuine contenders play eachother.
The last 9 rounds will be FIDE rated.
One day remains as a rest day.
The number of players ought to bring in $10k to 15k.



Alas, there is NO imagination in Australian chess admin - just a tradesman like plodding of the paradigm of repetition.


ACF! WAKE UP! BE WIMPS NO MORE! SHOW SOME VISION! LEAD THE WAY!

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2005, 10:56 PM
Jamie Hislop
David Hacche
Brian Jones
Alan Goldsmith

Sorry, I should have also asked anyone giving nominations to state the years when these players were applied and were knocked back, so that their performance histories at that point can be looked at.

For instance Hacche has been accepted while having a rating below the cutoff, twice as I understand it. So it is crucial to know when he was knocked back.

firegoat7
19-09-2005, 11:02 PM
Hello,


Anyway, I think making the tournament an open is a mistake. I believe that that people should earn their spots in tournaments and that those spots should be given out for quality chess, not weak chess. The tournament ought to remain closed but the selection process should be changed.

State titles should be scrapped as a way to qualify for the event. Clearly not all states are equal and we ought not to reward mediocre performances in mickey mouse state championships. That said I do not believe that people who win state championships are weak players. I believe the tournaments themselves are weak and they should not be seen as legitimate qualifying events.They are not good preperation for the Australian championship if they are weak. They also do not improve the standard of State chess because they are closed events only eligible for residents.

Special selection by a State as a nominated player should also be scrapped. It is unfair, to those who are not in the good books with State officials. Besides why should state officials choose favorites anyway, it only creates tension with in the chess community. In fact I have seen this really embitter some players. I remember Simon Rutherford being rated 100 points then his mate Jeremy O,Carroll and basically refusing to talk to Jammo ever again after he was not selected for an Asian junior. Better to not have state officials involved in these processes at all. Make it transparent, let the players know what they have to do to gain selection.

Promising juniors should not be allowed in the Australian championship. They should earn their place like everybody else. Allowing junior into events when they are massively underated compared to other players is simply discrimination. You wouldn't do it to people if it was racial,gender or class biased so why do it based on age? The arguement that they improve quickly is in my opinion a furphie. If they are really that good they will improve anyway. Juniors already have avenues for playing, so why create more spaces without making them compete for them.

Qualifying tournaments are the way to go. It would make Australian chess much more dynamic and much more interesting . We would see some wonderful drama, just like the old candidate matches (remember when the Russian team walked out on mass when one of their compatriots missed a win against Short). I believe some spots should be set aside for Grand prix events.
However most spots should be left for the reserves tournament. The reserves tournament is an absolute wonderful tournament. I think if you finish top 5 in that, you ought to get a spot next year.

I believe that Victoria has the right model when it comes to this formula. If you take a look at the reserves tournament this year in Victoria, it is clearly of a higher quality then the Canberra championship and probably the N.S.W championship.

I also believe the Australian championship should be every year. This would bring it up to date with overseas countries and ensure better chess.

Regardless of what the ACF does it has many options, what it cannot do is allow this tournament to continue on the way it is going. I have already heard that some juniors have already been accepted into the event? Are these rumors true? If so how did they qualify?

My last point is this. I do not believe that any player should be let into the tournament simply because of the recommendation of our GMs or IMs. This is elitism, it destroys the fabric of our chess community because it rewards people for achieving nothing. Its simply nepotistic and wrong.

cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
19-09-2005, 11:36 PM
Mike Woodhams never applied but he is a very interesting case. For those not in the know Mike Woodhams is a Box Hill player who represented Australia at the Olympiads (he also won a gold medal? I think but don't quote me on that). He unfortunately took a break from chess and was rated at 1900 when he returned (take it up with the ACF rating officer).Just in case anyone thinks fg7 is referring to me he isnt. This happened back in 1994 when John Summerfield was National Ratings Officer.

Woodhams had last been active in the December 1985 period rated 2350.
After the December 1992 rating period John Summerfiled removed around 8000 names from the ACF Master list based on inactivity.
When Peter Parr was NSW President and I were on the NSWCA Council in 94 & 95 we tried getting the ACF to get the 8000 deleted players re-added back to the Master file but to no avail. Note when Graham Saint and I took over doing the ACF Ratings in Aug 1996 whenever a player who was on that deleted list returned to play we readded them to the master file with their previous rating. (In late 1997 Graham and I eventually re-added all other players who had been deleted from the master file back in 1992 who had not since returned to active play).
When Woodhams returned to playing in the December 1994 rating period (after a 9 year break) he was traeted as a new player by Summerfield.
Woodhams Dec 1994 rating was a provisional 2090 based on 9 games.
After this Woodhams next played 1 game in the Dec 1995 period and his rating dropped to 2074. He did not play again till the December 1996 period when he next played 12 games and his rating dropped to 1951. twelve months later he played 3 games in the Dec 1997 period and his rating went to 1955.
His rating in the following periods were as follows:
Aug 1998 - 7 games 1941
Dec 1998 - 9 games 1930
Apr 1999 - 20 games 1952
Dec 1999 - 14 games 1952
Apr 2000 - 10 games 2116 (this included the 150 point uplift)
Aug 2000 - 23 games 2054

Note that during all this time the rating cut-off for the Australian Championship was 2100

Since the Glicko was introduced Woodhams rating hiostory is
Dec 2000 - 18 games 2055
Aug 2001 - 18 games 2084
Dec 2001 - 5 games 2075
Aug 2002 - 9 games 2059
Dec 2002 - 6 games 2112
Sep 2003 - 9 games 2134
Dec 2003 - 6 games 2077
He has been inactive on the rating list since then.

His current rating is 2147 (includes 70 point uplift from March 2004)

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2005, 11:46 PM
State titles should be scrapped as a way to qualify for the event. Clearly not all states are equal and we ought not to reward mediocre performances in mickey mouse state championships. That said I do not believe that people who win state championships are weak players. I believe the tournaments themselves are weak and they should not be seen as legitimate qualifying events.They are not good preperation for the Australian championship if they are weak. They also do not improve the standard of State chess because they are closed events only eligible for residents.

Actually in the Tasmanian Championship anyone can play and we have had interstate/overseas FMs playing in the event every now and then. They just can't win the title.

If you're saying state champs should not be qualifiers because there is no guarantee the winner has met strong opposition then you should object to ratings as a qualifier for exactly the same reason - they do not prove the player has met strong opposition. Nor, necessarily, do qualifying tournaments.


Special selection by a State as a nominated player should also be scrapped. It is unfair, to those who are not in the good books with State officials. Besides why should state officials choose favorites anyway, it only creates tension with in the chess community. In fact I have seen this really embitter some players. I remember Simon Rutherford being rated 100 points then his mate Jeremy O,Carroll and basically refusing to talk to Jammo ever again after he was not selected for an Asian junior. Better to not have state officials involved in these processes at all. Make it transparent, let the players know what they have to do to gain selection.

Surely that Asian junior selection would have been a federal selection and therefore irrelevant to the issue of biased nominated-player selection? Especially since Victoria would never have a nominated player scenario anyway. Do you have any examples of nominated players being picked who you think should not have?


Promising juniors should not be allowed in the Australian championship. They should earn their place like everybody else. Allowing junior into events when they are massively underated compared to other players is simply discrimination. You wouldn't do it to people if it was racial,gender or class biased so why do it based on age?

There already is gender-based discrimination - Australian Women's Champion title as a qualifier.

If juniors are prone to being underrated (in my view, certain fast-improving juniors are) then there is a case for letting them in. There is no comparable consideration for race, gender or class. There are also few events where they would get that kind of concentrated opportunity to play strong opponents game after game (more or less).


However most spots should be left for the reserves tournament. The reserves tournament is an absolute wonderful tournament. I think if you finish top 5 in that, you ought to get a spot next year.

Many players finishing top 5 in the Reserves would be lower-rated than some of the state champs who are below the ratings cutoff.


I also believe the Australian championship should be every year. This would bring it up to date with overseas countries and ensure better chess.

Actually I also think this is desirable, although I don't see how it would ensure better chess rather than simply more.


Regardless of what the ACF does it has many options, what it cannot do is allow this tournament to continue on the way it is going. I have already heard that some juniors have already been accepted into the event? Are these rumors true? If so how did they qualify?

Not a rumour but something already on the public record. Raymond Song has been accepted (see ACF newsletter 323). No others have.


My last point is this. I do not believe that any player should be let into the tournament simply because of the recommendation of our GMs or IMs. This is elitism, it destroys the fabric of our chess community because it rewards people for achieving nothing. Its simply nepotistic and wrong.

Again, is there any evidence that this has ever occurred?

Please could everybody claiming a specific deficit in the present system give a concrete example to back it? If what you're saying is true, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Bill Gletsos
20-09-2005, 12:09 AM
Sorry, I should have also asked anyone giving nominations to state the years when these players were applied and were knocked back, so that their performance histories at that point can be looked at.

For instance Hacche has been accepted while having a rating below the cutoff, twice as I understand it. So it is crucial to know when he was knocked back.Jones was rejected for the 1998 Aus Championship. His Aug 1997 rating was 2112 but it dropped to 2026 in the Dec 1997 list based on 29 games (this 86 point drop occurred under Elo so it cannot be blamed on the Glicko being to dynamic ;)). Brian's rating continued to drop over the next 16 months hitting a low of 1942 in April 1999.

I believe Hacche was rejected from the 1998 event also. His August 1997 rating was 1981 and his rating had been under 2000 since the Aug 1996 rating period. He did not play in the Dec 1997 rating period.

Hislop's rating was below 2000 from Dec 1993 onwards only going above in April 2000 to 2088 with the assistance of the 150 point uplift.

Goldsmith's rating was below 2000 from April 1994 onwards hitting a low of 1870 in Dec 1999. He went up to 2045 in April 2000 with the assistance of the 150 point uplift.

PHAT
20-09-2005, 01:09 AM
If you're saying state champs should not be qualifiers because there is no guarantee the winner has met strong opposition then you should object to ratings as a qualifier for exactly the same reason - they do not prove the player has met strong opposition. Nor, necessarily, do qualifying tournaments.

A high rating would be VERY time consuming to achieve without having played strong players. So, while a high rating is not proof of having played against strong players, it is highly probable they have.


(Are you sure you aren't on the piss. Your debating skill is in exponetial decay. By next week you won't be able to toilet without a comode.)

arosar
20-09-2005, 07:50 AM
Qualifying tournaments are the way to go. It would make Australian chess much more dynamic and much more interesting . We would see some wonderful drama, just like the old candidate matches (remember when the Russian team walked out on mass when one of their compatriots missed a win against Short). I believe some spots should be set aside for Grand prix events.
However most spots should be left for the reserves tournament. The reserves tournament is an absolute wonderful tournament. I think if you finish top 5 in that, you ought to get a spot next year.

This concept of a GP being used as a qualification event is interesting. I believe the USCF recently implemented such an idea. But help me out a little. I don't understand how this prevents the problem of 'low' rated players actually gaining a place in the Aus Championships. After all, don't you have the same pool of players vying for the GP spot? Or will the GP itself have its own qualification rules?

Incidentally, I think it is a mistake to complain about allowing juniors (sub 2150) as discriminatory. To my mind, that this event is closed, it is, by definition, discriminatory. Allowing juniors in is simply good policy in terms of talent management.

Overall, I agree with the general drift that any qualification rule(s) should be tighter and make for a stronger tournament. Could we not say, look, you'll qualify for this tourn if (1) your rating is 'x' and (2) you played 'y' number of games over (3) this or that ratings period? That way you don't have 2200 people or whatever but who've been inactive for a time. Or that, OK, you qualify if you won some tournament with an average rating of such and such? So you still recognise state champions but without the auto-entry. The obvious problem of course is for ACT or some other where they may not have the necessary pool of players. But why are they so precious?

AR

pax
20-09-2005, 09:31 AM
When Peter Parr was NSW President and I were on the NSWCA Council in 94 & 95 we tried getting the ACF to get the 8000 deleted players re-added back to the Master file but to no avail. Note when Graham Saint and I took over doing the ACF Ratings in Aug 1996 whenever a player who was on that deleted list returned to play we readded them to the master file with their previous rating. (In late 1997 Graham and I eventually re-added all other players who had been deleted from the master file back in 1992 who had not since returned to active play).

However it is worth pointing out that under Glicko or Glicko 2, an inactive (high RD) player's previous rating has very little influence on their new rating when they return to active player. In fact (under Glicko at least), if a previously inactive player performs lower than their previous rating for a number of games in one period, the *higher* their previous rating, the lower their new rating is likely to be.

For example, in Mike Woodhams' case, with a previous rating of 2350?? under Glicko, and returning to play with nine games at 2100, the new rating calculated by Glicko is so ludicrously low that the rating needs to be artificially set to his performance rating - his old rating would have had no effect anyway.

four four two
20-09-2005, 11:12 AM
Arosar,why do juniors need "talent" management? Raymond Song is currently more than a hundred points below the cut off point,he isnt the current australian junior champion, can you justify why he should be given entry into the championship over adult players who have a proven track record but also miss the cutoff point? :hmm: It seems hes there for publicity reasons,the ACF can show to the media we have a 10 year old playing. Why shouldnt he wait like everyone else who dont meet the current criteria? :hmm: Are we afraid he will give up chess in the next two years? :lol: :owned: It seems Raymond knows the right people ,and thats discriminating,as opposed to being discerning. :hand: :wall: :whistle:

shaun
20-09-2005, 11:29 AM
To restate a proposal I put up a while ago (although I can't seem to find it on this BB).

Australian Championship Qualifications

Anyone with an ACF Rating over 2150 and a ! or above next to their rating
Anyone with an Average ACF/FIDE rating above 2150 (and a ! or above etc)
Previous Reserves Winner
Top 3 finishers in the previous championship (including ties)

The following players via qualifying tournaments (based on the BCF model)

State Champion from the most recent state championship (non transferable)
The winner of a nominated tournament from each state (winner need not be resident of the state)
Best placed local resident in a nominated tournament from each state.

eg The ACT might have 3 qualification tournaments - State Championship, ANU Open (which any eligible player could qualify from), Doeberl Cup Premier (which the best ACT resident could qualify from).

Net effect: More players get a chance at competing in the Australian Championship with the obvious downside that the field is larger and weaker at the tail end. But at least players who were borderline cases would have a chance at qualifying without relying on the judgement of others.

shaun
20-09-2005, 11:33 AM
Given that part of David B's objection to the ACT Championship being used as a qualifier for the Oz champs, it is important to know that a motion was put up at this years ACTCA AGM to have the Chmapionship held as a round robin in the years it was to be a qualifier for the OZ Championships. This motion was rejected by a majority of members present.
Democracy, like casting pearls before swine .....

four four two
20-09-2005, 11:42 AM
oink oink shaun ;)

pax
20-09-2005, 11:52 AM
A few posts ago you were arguing that players rated 2000-2100 don't have enough opportunities to play top echelon players 2200 and up. Of such players, the ones who *really* need the opportunity are the juniors - they are the ones that can push on to the next level.

If we are serious about helping Australian players reach the top level of chess (say IM and above), then we need to help the top juniors to play against the very best competition possible (where they are up to the challenge). Raymond Song may not be Australian Junior champion (he seems to have little interest in the Australian Junior title), but he clearly has the greatest potential of any Australian junior since Zhao. His rating is 2046 (2085 FIDE) and rising, and he has proved time and again that he can compete with Australia's top players. He may have no chance of winning, but neither will half of the field. It would be utterly obscene to deny him a place.



Arosar,why do juniors need "talent" management? Raymond Song is currently more than a hundred points below the cut off point,he isnt the current australian junior champion, can you justify why he should be given entry into the championship over adult players who have a proven track record but also miss the cutoff point? It seems hes there for publicity reasons,the ACF can show to the media we have a 10 year old playing. Why shouldnt he wait like everyone else who dont meet the current criteria? Are we afraid he will give up chess in the next two years? It seems Raymond knows the right people ,and thats discriminating,as opposed to being discerning.

Garvinator
20-09-2005, 11:55 AM
but he clearly has the greatest potential of any Australian junior since Zhao.
Does he :hmm: could I suggest the current australian junior champion as someone with more potential :hmm:

pax
20-09-2005, 11:55 AM
To restate a proposal I put up a while ago (although I can't seem to find it on this BB).

Australian Championship Qualifications

Anyone with an ACF Rating over 2150 and a ! or above next to their rating
Anyone with an Average ACF/FIDE rating above 2150 (and a ! or above etc)
Previous Reserves Winner
Top 3 finishers in the previous championship (including ties)

Surely at least the top 10 would deserve a place? Even with top 10 it would be rare for someone to qualify this way without also having a rating over the cutoff.

pax
20-09-2005, 12:03 PM
Does he :hmm: could I suggest the current australian junior champion as someone with more potential :hmm:

It is of course highly debatable, but ratings certainly suggest Raymond. Given that Raymond is currently only 26 points behind Moulthun, and two years younger, how strong do you think he might be in two years time?

four four two
20-09-2005, 12:20 PM
Under my preferred criteria Pax ,Raymond would be in the tournament,but then again so would Aghamalyan,Hacche,Domagoj Dragicevic,etc.Seeing as they are not using my preferred criteria how do you justify him being there when he isnt the current australian junior champion,hasnt won a state title,and is 100 points below the cutoff point? :hmm: Would it be such a crime to let him wait 2 years like other 2050-2100 players? As for pushing on the next level,werent our last 2 players to get the IM title over 30? Some people in this country seem to think that if you havnt got your IM title by the age of 25 your a waste of time and space. If Australia had 2 closed GM norm tournaments every year,then at least half of our next batch of GMs would be over 30,juniors are not our only saving grace. In the last 15 years how many juniors have been good enough to make it onto the olympiad team?, only 3 as I can see.Raymond Song may become the strongest junior this country has ever seen,but nonetheless he should pay his dues like everyone else. :hand:

Garvinator
20-09-2005, 12:45 PM
It is of course highly debatable, but ratings certainly suggest Raymond. Given that Raymond is currently only 26 points behind Moulthun, and two years younger, how strong do you think he might be in two years time?
actually i was putting up another name. Of course Moulthun's rating will be going up again after NVDG Classic

pax
20-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Under my preferred criteria Pax ,Raymond would be in the tournament,but then again so would Aghamalyan,Hacche,Domagoj Dragicevic,etc.Seeing as they are not using my preferred criteria how do you justify him being there when he isnt the current australian junior champion,hasnt won a state title,and is 100 points below the cutoff point? :hmm: Would it be such a crime to let him wait 2 years like other 2050-2100 players?

Yes, it would. He is good enough to compete now, and has the potential to reach IM standard in a few years. The other players you mention do not have IM potential (maybe they did once).



As for pushing on the next level,werent our last 2 players to get the IM title over 30?

Chapman was. Who is the other? The other recent examples are Zhao and Smerdon. Guys like Chapman and Sandler were at least around the 2300 level for some time before getting the IM. They didn't make leaps from 2000 to IM as an adult - top juniors have that potential.



Some people in this country seem to think that if you havnt got your IM title by the age of 25 your a waste of time and space.


Not at all. However, I don't know of any example of a player rated under 2150 at age 25 going on to make IM.



If Australia had 2 closed GM norm tournaments every year,then at least half of our next batch of GMs would be over 30,juniors are not our only saving grace.


I'm afraid GM tournaments are a waste of time and money right now, as there is nobody close to GM standard. Don't forget that they need a rating of 2500 as well as the norms. Lane and Zhao are the closest, both rated under 2450. IMO they would need to get their ratings up to around 2480 before you start putting on special GM norm events for them.

As for the next batch of GMs being over 30, would you care to name names? Lane has been on a plateau for the last few years despite his impressive Aus Champs win. Nobody else looks even remotely close to reaching GM standard. The best hopes of a GM title seem to me to be maybe Zhao and someone yet to emerge - maybe one of the current crop of juniors like Ly Ikeda and Song, or maybe someone we haven't even seen yet.



In the last 15 years how many juniors have been good enough to make it onto the olympiad team?, only 3 as I can see.

And those three juniors (Smerdon, Zhao and Tao) are probably the three strongest players to emerge in those 15 years. I don't see any Olympiad players emerging from the ranks of 2100 rated adults.

Alan Shore
20-09-2005, 01:02 PM
It is of course highly debatable, but ratings certainly suggest Raymond. Given that Raymond is currently only 26 points behind Moulthun, and two years younger, how strong do you think he might be in two years time?

The Australian Juniors is an excellent measure as it gives a good measuring stick against players all over the country - not to mention Moulthun's recent wins against IM's and GM's overseas and in Australia. I'd say start looking at results. I believe Moulthun's current standard is more like 200 points higher rather than just 26. Having said that, it's impossible to tell how Ray will perform over the next two years but for now, it should be clear.

Hey have the two ever played each other? I don't think Ray played Aus Juniors did he?

arosar
20-09-2005, 01:07 PM
Ly actually beat a GM? I must have missed that news. Who??

AR

Alan Shore
20-09-2005, 01:24 PM
Ly actually beat a GM? I must have missed that news. Who??

AR

http://www.sunchess.aunz.org/Caloundra_2005.htm

Kerry Stead
20-09-2005, 01:48 PM
Thought I'd add my thoughts to this discussion ...

Personally I have no problem with the idea of qualification through state championship events - for the most part, the players can score some points here and there and not be totally out of place, albeit that unless they are one of the top players already (such as a Johansen) then it would seem unlikely that they would be in contention to win the title.

Current Australian Junior Champ should have auto-entry ... I think no-one doubts that ... even if the tournament has been weak, or the winner is percieved not to be of the usual 'standard', we still need to support our top juniors.

Current Australian Women's Champ ... perhaps with the Australian Women's title being decided in the Australian Open it is not an ideal title system, but it is only ONE place in the tournament ... so I'm happy to let it slide ... although often the player has been of a good enough standard for the tournament anyway (eg: Irina Berezina).

As for other ideas for qualification ... previous reserves winner should get in (something else I don't think is in question). Rating qualification ... hmmm ... I'd say 2150 or 2200 ... not sure wuite which to run with. I know Bill has stats on number of players >2200 and >2100 but what about >2150? How many are there? Are they concentrated in the eastern states, or are there some potential rating qualifiers from WA & SA (more than 2-3 active players)? I wouldn't mind seeing something like the highest placing non-automatic qualifier in class 3 GP events to get a place. There aren't too many class 3 GP events, and to finish in say the top 5 at an event like Doeberl isn't the easiest of things to do ...

I'd say you'd be looking at about a 30 player tournament for the Championship. One which has the top players, but also allows people on the cusp of rating qualification to play (class 3 GPs), as well as state champions, so you have a national representation.

The thing that I would be inclined to do with all these ways of qualification is to make qualification strict ... no room for a council or organising committee to say yes or no to one or more players - that simply causes problems. For this to happen, the rules of qualification need to be clearly spelt out - things such as which events are qualification tournaments, what tie-breaks are to be used if 2 or more players tie for a qualification place, etc ... Another additional thing to do might be to make all ratings data available, so that players can accurately calculate their ratings, rather than the current system of being able to get a good approximation, but with a (roughly) 5 point margin of error. If qualification on rating is to be strict, then players should have the ability to figure out what they need to do to get/maintain a rating at the qualification level.

four four two
20-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Pax, are you telling me Domagoj Dragicevic who is about 21 years old,finished equal 5th in last years australian open alongside a GM and a IM,has beaten Ian Rogers=and not on time,and has a fide rating higher than Ly and Song ,has no potential to become an IM? :hmm:

How can Raymond be good enough if he hasnt met the 3 criteria available? Are you telling me Song would perform better than other 2050-2100 players who also dont meet the current criteria? :hmm: There are 2 players who finished equal fifth in last years australian open who dont meet the current criteria,has Song performed as well against a field with 3 GMs and 3 IMs? :whistle:

As regards to the GM title,in Australia's case the players MUST HAVE 3 norms or to win a world junior,ratings you have plenty of time to work on. If your trying to tell me that Lane, Solomon,Wohl,Gluzman,Chapman,and Speck would have no real chance of getting a GM norm if there were 2 closed tournaments a year in Australia then I think your undervaluing some our top players,all of them are above 2370,getting a rating of 2500 wouldnt be as impossible as you think.Lane and Wohl have both been Australian champions,Speck finished equal 1st but lost a playoff to Johansen.Ly ,Song and Ikeda have yet to perform anywhere near that,of the young players only Zhao and Smerdon are real contenders in the forseeable future for a GM title. The sad reality is that most juniors who are 2100 will never be FMs,IMs,play on the olympiad team or GMs,not because they cant,but because when the going gets tough they dont stay the distance.Look at the last 15 years,most of those juniors who were 2100 never got any better than 2200,and half of them are not even active over the board today. :hand: :hmm:

Aaron Guthrie
20-09-2005, 04:30 PM
Firstly I should say that I dont see the Aus Champs or the ACF's primary role as being creating IM quality players. I also think that making judgements about an individual's potential as a bit of toss. So my comments are not in relation to the Aus Champs or any indivuals potential.

I think that if the goal is to create IM quality players, concentration on players that are aiming at the IM title is not all you want to do. Having many players that are strong (say for example, 2200-2350) but below IM quality strength will help any player that wishes to become of IM quality in their development to that point.

DoroPhil
20-09-2005, 05:31 PM
Pax, are you telling me Domagoj Dragicevic who is about 21 years old has no potential to become an IM? :hmm:

23, and, unfortunately, no way he has the potential...

arosar
20-09-2005, 05:36 PM
Is that the bloke who beat Rogers in Doeberl a coupla years ago?

AR

PHAT
20-09-2005, 05:41 PM
Define the problem.
1. Need to crown someone as the Australian Champion.
2. Need to have the best players playing the best players.
3. Need to complete within 11 days with FIDE ratibility.
4. Want to any player to compete, who has a chance of a top 10 finish.
5. Want upcoming juniors to play tough matches.
6. Want lotsa money from fees from lotsa players, to fund a chunky prize.

Solution:

A giant Swiss can fulfill the requirements above. The only "problem" is the so called junk rounds. To solve it:

Tornament is a 17 round Swiss.
2 days x 3 rounds of 60 minutes +30 seconds
then
9 days x 1 round of 90 minutes +30 seconds
*The first 6 rounds will ensure that top players are effectively playing a round robin. However,
*The first 6 rounds are not FIDE rated.
*The last 9 rounds will see all the genuine contenders play each other.
*The last 9 rounds will be FIDE rated.
*The number of players ought to bring in $10k to 15k.

Can someone please say what is WRONG with this format?

ursogr8
20-09-2005, 06:24 PM
23, and, unfortunately, no way he has the potential...

Hmm
Convince me of this Phil.

It maybe he just does not have access to a chess culture that would allow him to progress a few more rungs.
I don't think he has had the advantage of ERGAS type training camp has he?
He may have potential.

starter

shaun
20-09-2005, 07:22 PM
Can someone please say what is WRONG with this format?

Didn't this proposal change between when I first read it and now? If so then even the author thinks there must be problems with it. (If not then I am going mad)

Bill Gletsos
20-09-2005, 08:01 PM
Didn't this proposal change between when I first read it and now?It sure did. See post #42 for the original.

If so then even the author thinks there must be problems with it. (If not then I am going mad)You arent going mad.

pax
20-09-2005, 10:17 PM
Pax, are you telling me Domagoj Dragicevic who is about 21 years old,finished equal 5th in last years australian open alongside a GM and a IM,has beaten Ian Rogers=and not on time,and has a fide rating higher than Ly and Song ,has no potential to become an IM? :hmm:


I wouldn't say he has no potential, but if he is like other young people the process of having a life (university, job, family) will prevent him from dedicating himself to making the substantial improvement required to get to a consistent IM level. Look he had a great Aussie Open, no doubt about it, and on that basis I would bet money that he would be admitted to the Australian Championships if he applied, and justifiably so. But come on, be realistic - an eleven year old at 2050 has far far more potential than a 23 year old at 2100.



How can Raymond be good enough if he hasnt met the 3 criteria available? Are you telling me Song would perform better than other 2050-2100 players who also dont meet the current criteria?


I'm saying that he will get a lot more benefit out of playing than others in the 2050-2100 range. And yes, I think he's probably the best bet out of those players to do well. Time will tell.



:hmm: There are 2 players who finished equal fifth in last years australian open who dont meet the current criteria,has Song performed as well against a field with 3 GMs and 3 IMs? :whistle:


Well Ray did finish only half a point behind Domagoj et al last year, which is not much in a monster swiss.



As regards to the GM title,in Australia's case the players MUST HAVE 3 norms or to win a world junior,ratings you have plenty of time to work on. If your trying to tell me that Lane, Solomon,Wohl,Gluzman,Chapman,and Speck would have no real chance of getting a GM norm if there were 2 closed tournaments a year in Australia then I think your undervaluing some our top players,all of them are above 2370,getting a rating of 2500 wouldnt be as impossible as you think.

Do they have the potential for a GM norm? Some of them, probably. Lane scored a performance rating over 2600 in the 02-03 Championships, which would have been a norm had he played another GM. Wohl has come pretty close to a norm a couple of times I think (maybe even has one)? Solomon I think got a norm waay back (probably expired by now). Can't see Gluzman getting one - especially since he's practically retired.

But would any of them get the title? Not impossible, but the chances are pretty slim. I don't think it's worth putting on special GM norm events for players rated around 2400.


Look at the last 15 years,most of those juniors who were 2100 never got any better than 2200,and half of them are not even active over the board today. :hand: :hmm:

Hmm. Look at who were the really freakishly talented players at a very young age over the last 15 years: Wallace, Tao, Smerdon, Zhao and Speck. Well that's four out of the current top ten. There are a few that didn't go on to the next level, but on the whole the conversion rate is pretty good.

DoroPhil
20-09-2005, 10:49 PM
Hmm
Convince me of this Phil.

It maybe he just does not have access to a chess culture that would allow him to progress a few more rungs.
I don't think he has had the advantage of ERGAS type training camp has he?
He may have potential.

starter

Well, Mr. Starter, in my opinion the word "potential" does not apply to 23-year-olds. That's the age of has-beens already. He might as well be 43 or 63. I don't think anybody would argue that, say, Hacche has potential to become IM. Same deal with Domagoj.

Also, my theory would be that when/ if Domagoj stops coaching chess for a living and gets a real job his rating would suffer greatly.

Bereaved
21-09-2005, 12:50 AM
Well, Mr. Starter, in my opinion the word "potential" does not apply to 23-year-olds. That's the age of has-beens already. He might as well be 43 or 63. I don't think anybody would argue that, say, Hacche has potential to become IM. Same deal with Domagoj.

Also, my theory would be that when/ if Domagoj stops coaching chess for a living and gets a real job his rating would suffer greatly.


Ageism`/noun/ an attitude which stereotypes a person, especially an elderly person, according to age rather than individual abilities [age + -ism, modelled on RACISM, SEXISM, etc] - ageist, adjective, noun

Discriminatory /adjective/ exhibiting prejudice; showing discrimination.

Prejudice /noun/ 1.An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, favourable or unfavourable. 3. disadvantage resulting from some judgement or action of another. 4. resulting injury or detriment - verb ( prejudiced, prejudicing) 5. to affect with a prejudice, favourable or unfavourable: these facts prejudiced us in his favour. 6. to affect disadvantageously or detrimentally - phrase: 7. Without prejudice, Law without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand

-source Macquarie Dictionary, third edition ( 1997)

And finally:
Raymond Song eligible for Aust Championship: The ACF has ruled that fast-improving junior Raymond Song will be entitled to play in the 2005-6 Australian Championship. The motion was passed unanimously

The ACF has also decided to contribute $500 to the NSW Junior Chess League as organisers of the Australian Young Masters events

- ACF bulletin NO.323, June 23, 2005

Hello everyone,

The first few quotes are more to cast a sort of light over this debate.
Much of this debate seems to centre around ratings and eligibilty, and the remainder seems to be concerned with who receives exceptions, and if juniors, why so?

Certainly as this is predominantly a discussion conducted by adults involved in the Australian Chess playing community in some fashion, I find this inordinately large preoccupation with the junior component of our community perplexing. It is agreed that no one has located Ponce de Leon's fountain, and that new members must be around when the rest of us are gone, but does this sort of sentiment to a large extent alienate the majority of the chess playing community? Surely no one wants to have to sing what about me? Certainly not if it is me doing so!!

secondly:
'Also, my theory would be that when/ if Domagoj stops coaching chess for a living and gets a real job his rating would suffer greatly.'- Dorophil

Wow; this is truly profound, Dorophil. Tell us some more about these real jobs; tell Darryl Johansen too!!; ( and Peter Froehlich, and Leonid Sandler and Nick Speck and too many other of Australia's top players to mention, in some capacity).

Please provide a suitable list of appropriate professions for Chess Coaches at this moment so that they can move away from their sad sorry state of delusionment that helping teach children to play chess is a gainful, useful and worthwhile activity.

And from Pax, in reference to Raymond Song:


I'm saying that he will get a lot more benefit out of playing than others in the 2050-2100 range. And yes, I think he's probably the best bet out of those players to do well. Time will tell.

If time will tell, and it seems it does already, with the others' ages against them, the fact that he will get more benefit is of course a personal opinion? elsewise is there a means of calculating this benefit to be received on a scale versus a players age? I am unaware of such a thing.

and finally; I know it is overkill...


Well, Mr. Starter, in my opinion the word "potential" does not apply to 23-year-olds. That's the age of has-beens already.

Many, if not all, of the world's doctor's are yet to be qualified at this age. Be sure to let each and every one of them know of your extreme suspicion in their competency when next you speak to them...oooh, :wall: :wall: :wall: how silly of me, you meant Chess players :wall: :wall:

Also the next time you meet a nice young girl in her mid twenties, I suggest that you start by letting her know that she is over the hill! :owned: :owned: that way she will recognize you for the mature well adjusted knowledgeable and erudite person you display yourself to be in this manner, time and time again, :owned: :owned:

Take care, Dorophil, and may God Bless you with the wisdom of a good answer to this, because I am really looking forward to it, yours, Macavity

PHAT
21-09-2005, 06:52 AM
Didn't this proposal change between when I first read it and now? If so then even the author thinks there must be problems with it. (If not then I am going mad)

Yes, a couple of modifications/aditions. But the idea is the same: Long Swiss with two stages. A fast soughting out stage, followed by a FIDE rated stage that approximates a round robin.

Now, I ask again what is WRONG with idea?

Dozy
21-09-2005, 07:38 AM
Yes, a couple of modifications/aditions. But the idea is the same: Long Swiss with two stages. A fast soughting out stage, followed by a FIDE rated stage that approximates a round robin.

Now, I ask again what is WRONG with idea?
Congratulations, Matt. Lewis Carrol would have been proud of that new word. Obviously a "soughting out" is a sort out that ought to be done.

Using one word where two were needed previously brings a whole new economy to the language, doesn't it!

Maybe we should change Sydney Water's name to "Sydney Woughter" coz they ought to be doing something about the woughter shoughtage.

It'd be a serious mistake to change rort to rought, though, because those politicians who currently rort the system could feel noble about it if they thort they oughta.

Restaurants might make a killing with desserts if they sold toughtes instead of tortes. Weight-conscious patrons would now feel justified in ordering an extra serve.

Did I say killing? If they sold too much dessert to too many unbhealthy people, they'd need a moughtician standing by to remove the bodies of their over-stuffed customers to a moughtuary.

It'll never catch on of course, but hey! who cares? It was just a thort.

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 07:48 AM
Now Dozy, if one didn't know better one may think you are having a go at my erstwhile club mate. :D

Dozy
21-09-2005, 07:50 AM
Now Dozy, if one didn't know better one may think you are having a go at my erstwhile club mate. :D
Perish the thort! That's not my style - as Matt knows.

ursogr8
21-09-2005, 07:59 AM
Well, Mr. Starter, in my opinion the word "potential" does not apply to 23-year-olds. That's the age of has-beens already. He might as well be 43 or 63. I don't think anybody would argue that, say, Hacche has potential to become IM. Same deal with Domagoj.

Also, my theory would be that when/ if Domagoj stops coaching chess for a living and gets a real job his rating would suffer greatly.

Thanks Phil for your response.
I notice that you have drawn the critical attention of macavity, so I will steer clear of the issues he wants to pursue with you. But, I was interested in your view on my suggestion that DD, given some time in a hot-house improvement program like ERGAS, may still climb a few more rungs. You have answered by saying 23 years old is too late. This clarifies your earlier post for me.
regards
starter

DoroPhil
21-09-2005, 10:46 AM
Wow; this is truly profound, Dorophil. Tell us some more about these real jobs; tell Darryl Johansen too!!; ( and Peter Froehlich, and Leonid Sandler and Nick Speck and too many other of Australia's top players to mention, in some capacity).

Please provide a suitable list of appropriate professions for Chess Coaches at this moment so that they can move away from their sad sorry state of delusionment that helping teach children to play chess is a gainful, useful and worthwhile activity.



You've got to be kidding me!

While I really enjoy your writing style, Mr. Pykey, the points you make are somewhat naive. Style over substance, so to say. Is that how they teach journalism in Frankston TAFE nowadays?

Anyway, in response to your numerous quotes, I would like to provide you with one of the favourite chess-related quotes of mine. Goes something like this: "In chess - International Master, in real estate - local expert".

Care to guess the autor, the date, and the overall context?

jenni
21-09-2005, 12:07 PM
Does he :hmm: could I suggest the current australian junior champion as someone with more potential :hmm:

Probably equal potential. Moulthun is older (and age makes a big difference), but Ray has had access to better coaching.

Instead of picking who has the "most" potential, we should try and have as "many" as possible. Someone with stunning potential could fall by the wayside as an adult, due to study, career or even a non chess tolerant wife...

jenni
21-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Is that the bloke who beat Rogers in Doeberl a coupla years ago?

AR

Yes it is - caused a bit of a sensation. :)

I think (but might be wrong), that Ian sacked a piece, but it then went horribly wrong and Ian lost.

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 12:20 PM
and age makes a big difference

Age does I believe make a huge difference also the amount of coaching and quality chess opposition the kid has been exposed to thus far (ie how much of displayed talent is natural, pushed or developed). Obviously big centres like Melbourne or Sydney develop talent faster than, say, Alice Springs.

From a mathematical modelling point of view it reminds me of the problem of valuing options on a futures exchange. Perhaps this is a new application of the Black-Scholes equation. Although I doubt there would be a Nobel Prize in it second time around. The question is are they US or European options. :)

antichrist
21-09-2005, 01:17 PM
Well, Mr. Starter, in my opinion the word "potential" does not apply to 23-year-olds. That's the age of has-beens already. ...

In rural Philippines a lady being 25 is considered over the hill - so chessmothers don't go there looking for a bit of young stuff.

And Dozy your post 79 is a Classic Stir.

PHAT
21-09-2005, 01:26 PM
Congratulations, Matt. Lewis Carrol would have been proud of that new word. ... It was just a thort.


:lol: :clap:

PHAT
21-09-2005, 01:34 PM
Now Dozy, if one didn't know better one may think you are having a go at my erstwhile club mate. :D

ERSTWHILE?!?!?!?!?!?!? Miss one Tuesday and I get called erstwhile. Geez.

(Ilazi asked could he play our game on Thursday.)

Ian Rout
21-09-2005, 02:11 PM
Age does I believe make a huge difference
Up to a point, but titles received and ratings achieved can be misleading. Kramnik for instance was never the world's youngest GM, it just wasn't part of his schedule. And somebody who is pretty good for a twelve-year-old wouldn't be so special for a fourteen-year-old so they need to keep developing.

If someone can learn chess at five and be a GM at eighteen, which wouldn't raise any eyebrows these days, can somebody learn chess at 25 and be a GM at 38? Observation tells us no, but is this because the 25yo has other things to do or because their brain has already started turning to mush?

Dozy
21-09-2005, 02:23 PM
And Dozy your post 79 is a Classic Stir.
Thanks, AC ... I'm afraid bulldust has been a long time companion of mine...

jenni
21-09-2005, 02:27 PM
If someone can learn chess at five and be a GM at eighteen, which wouldn't raise any eyebrows these days, can somebody learn chess at 25 and be a GM at 38? Observation tells us no, but is this because the 25yo has other things to do or because their brain has already started turning to mush?

Just by observation, you don't need to have started at 5 and been super strong by 11.

I have seen many kids start playing chess at 14 and if they really put their head down and work they more than catch up with the early starters.

However there is no doubt that a kid at primary school has unlimited time on thier hands, whereas a 25 year old has (if they are at all normal), a very tiny amount of "disposable time".

Apart from that it is a case of the rich get richer. If a kid presents as a potential very strong player, the strong players and coaches will find time to do work with them, they will get into strong competitions, play overseas with terrific preparation etc etc. A 25 year old is going to be doing it pretty much on their own.

Dozy
21-09-2005, 02:36 PM
. . . is this because the 25yo has other things to do or because their brain has already started turning to mush?
Poor decrepit old 25-y-olds. You feel a bit sorry for them as they ease into their dotage. Maybe we should put "BND" after their names to mark their 25th birthday -- that's "Bloody Near Dead", Ian. Then when they reach that venerable mark of 30, just before senile dementia sets in, we can give them an "MFC" suffix. (Measure For Coffin, mate.)
I'd write a bit more but my memory's not what it used to be and the district nurse has just arrived to change my bed sheets and clean my choppers.
Keep up the good work, young feller.

jenni
21-09-2005, 02:49 PM
Just a few thoughts on all this. It is obvious that people like the concept of a closed competition, as it makes it special, gives it status etc.

I don't think anyone is suggesting thata winner is going to come from the ranks of the 2080 to 2180 players (has this ever happened?)

So all the arrguements about fairness etc is really about whether a person should have the honour and recognition of being part of the event. There is of course the opportunity to play strong players, which will help develop this rank of players chess further.

Denis and I have been discussing the latter idea, (a few weeks ago before the current debate started). We had already come to the conclusion that the ACF should be doing something for adult development as well as junior development. (We are planning to have development initiatives raised as a topic for the JSC, and were considering about widening it to allow for adult development as well).

Using a rating cutoff plus selection is fiendishly hard. I have sat on quite a few selection committees both in the ACT and for Ergas. Usually the first half of the places are really easy to fill, the next 1/4 is tough, but usually it settles down to some fairly obvious choices. The last 25% is incredibly difficult - various groups always have their favourites and usually with good justification and it is exceptionally hard to settle on the final people. Someone is always disgruntled and to be quite honest you may as well do it with a blindfold and a pin.

I suspect this is the same - there are probably 20 people who are all more than good enough to fill those last few places, but most have to miss out. I guess if people want a place in the champs then the incentive is there to work on their rating. The question of activity though is a key one - should someone who has been inactive and "protected" their rating be able to get in. If an activity criteria was applied to last 10 places, then perhaps it would be fairer to those who play a lot and enter the shark infested waters of tournaments with improving juniors?

i.e say 30 is the number of players desired. Put in the strongest players and the special places (state champions, Junior champion) then for the remaining places (5 or 6 perhaps?) have an activity criteria of ? 40 games in the last 2 years perhaps? Then you are more likely to be comparing fairly. If someone has been reasonably active and is 60 points more than someone else, surely not unfair to reward the person with the higher rating?

I still like the idea of qualifying tournaments, but can't see it get off the ground in a meaningful way.

Garvinator
21-09-2005, 03:04 PM
Denis and I have been discussing the latter idea, (a few weeks ago before the current debate started). We had already come to the conclusion that the ACF should be doing something for adult development as well as junior development. (We are planning to have development initiatives raised as a topic for the JSC, and were considering about widening it to allow for adult development as well).
:clap: :clap: one of the best things I have heard in a long time. What are the odds of anything like this really happening though :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 03:09 PM
:P
A high rating would be VERY time consuming to achieve without having played strong players. So, while a high rating is not proof of having played against strong players, it is highly probable they have.

So? firegoat wasn't claiming that someone being a state champion meant they had never played strong players, was he? Only that there was no guarantee, which is also true in the case of ratings.

At the time my rating reached its peak so far (2039) I had very rarely played anyone OTB who was higher-rated than my new rating. Rather I had built it up largely by very consistently beating 1600s, 1700s and 1800s.

Suppose a player of about 2000 strength, but FIDE unrated, arrives from overseas and plays 20 games against players of average rating about 1600. This player would normally score about 18.5/20 against this field. Say they have an unusually good run and score 19.5/20 - depending on the various RDs etc of the opponents that could well give them a place in the Australian Championship.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 03:14 PM
Raymond Song is currently more than a hundred points below the cut off point,he isnt the current australian junior champion, can you justify why he should be given entry into the championship over adult players who have a proven track record but also miss the cutoff point?

The bit in bold is your mistake - Song's entry does not affect the chances of any adult who wishes to enter being accepted.

jenni
21-09-2005, 03:16 PM
:clap: :clap: one of the best things I have heard in a long time. What are the odds of anything like this really happening though :uhoh:

Actually GG you were one of the people I was thinking about when Denis raised adult develoment as well..

It will happen - the ACF wheels grind exceedingly slowly, but they do grind.....

PHAT
21-09-2005, 03:17 PM
...can somebody learn chess at 25 and be a GM at 38? Observation tells us no, but is this because the 25yo has other things to do or because their brain has already started turning to mush?

Try this http://content.apa.org/journals/dev/39/3/535

and this http://content.apa.org/journals/dev/34/5/851

Garvinator
21-09-2005, 03:17 PM
Actually GG you were one of the people I was thinking about
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 03:35 PM
Define the problem.
1. Need to crown someone as the Australian Champion.
2. Need to have the best players playing the best players.
3. Need to complete within 11 days with FIDE ratibility.
4. Want to any player to compete, who has a chance of a top 10 finish.
5. Want upcoming juniors to play tough matches.
6. Want lotsa money from fees from lotsa players, to fund a chunky prize.

Solution:

A giant Swiss can fulfill the requirements above. The only "problem" is the so called junk rounds. To solve it:

Tornament is a 17 round Swiss.
2 days x 3 rounds of 60 minutes +30 seconds
then
9 days x 1 round of 90 minutes +30 seconds
*The first 6 rounds will ensure that top players are effectively playing a round robin. However,
*The first 6 rounds are not FIDE rated.
*The last 9 rounds will see all the genuine contenders play each other.
*The last 9 rounds will be FIDE rated.
*The number of players ought to bring in $10k to 15k.

Can someone please say what is WRONG with this format?

(i) Only nine FIDE rated rounds is nowhere near as good for norm chances.
(ii) An Aus Champs should be entirely at serious time limits in the interests of the integrity of the title. By round six the top players will probably be playing each other because of the number of draws. Rogers vs Johansen at G60/+30 in round 6 of the Australian Championship? :rolleyes:
(iii) The Swiss system will not create a round robin at the top - by the end players having played each other so much will mean they are delving into the midfield and round 15 will be much junkier than round 6.
(iv) You can't count. Twice. In your previous version you had (1*4)+(9*1)=15. This time you have (2*3)+(9*1)=17.
(v) You thought of it. Based on past experience it is a safe assumption that any scheme with Matthew Sweeney's name on it will have at least another three errors on top of those I can find when I give it five minutes' thought more than it deserves.

Alan Shore
21-09-2005, 03:48 PM
Actually GG you were one of the people I was thinking about when Denis raised adult develoment as well..

It will happen - the ACF wheels grind exceedingly slowly, but they do grind.....

LOL.

Yeah, anyway, chess is dying in QLD. It's been superceded by Warcraft.. and poker.

Garvinator
21-09-2005, 03:50 PM
(v) You thought of it. Based on past experience it is a safe assumption that any scheme with Matthew Sweeney's name on it will have at least another three errors on top of those I can find when I give it five minutes' thought more than it deserves.
So Kevin, in this instance it means you will have given it a total of five minutes thought ;)

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2005, 04:01 PM
(iv) You can't count. Twice. In your previous version you had (1*4)+(9*1)=15. This time you have (2*3)+(9*1)=17.Well done. :clap: I had also noticed this but I figured I would wait and see if anyone else picked it up.

(v) You thought of it. Based on past experience it is a safe assumption that any scheme with Matthew Sweeney's name on it will have at least another three errors on top of those I can find when I give it five minutes' thought more than it deserves.Even if you only spent 30 secs on it that is 30 secs more time than it deserved. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 04:08 PM
So Kevin, in this instance it means you will have given it a total of five minutes thought ;)

Four and a half, actually. :P

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2005, 04:10 PM
Four and a half, actually. :PThat was overly generous. You obviously had nothing better to do. ;)

PHAT
21-09-2005, 04:12 PM
(i) Only nine FIDE rated rounds is nowhere near as good for norm chances.
(ii) An Aus Champs should be entirely at serious time limits in the interests of the integrity of the title. By round six the top players will probably be playing each other because of the number of draws. Rogers vs Johansen at G60/+30 in round 6 of the Australian Championship? :rolleyes:
(iii) The Swiss system will not create a round robin at the top - by the end players having played each other so much will mean they are delving into the midfield and round 15 will be much junkier than round 6.
(iv) You can't count. Twice. In your previous version you had (1*4)+(9*1)=15. This time you have (2*3)+(9*1)=17.
(v) You thought of it.
i. So, would 11 rounds be OK for norms? If so, no problem. Have 11 rounds in 11 days.
ii Maybe 6 rounds at 60 kinutes is too many? Solution 1: have 4 rounds at 60 minutes. Solution 2: Use SP to bar pairings between plapers in the top ~10 seeds for the first phase of 60minute games.
iii I cannot agree that the top ten places in the second phase would be slumming it with ant player not in the top 20 places - let alone in the midfield (#30 to#90) of a 120 player swiss.
iv. Who cares, dickhead. It is the idea that matters. (As it happens, I can add up, I simply didn't add up when I changed amy mind on what I would suggest.)
v. Nasty little private school brat.

PHAT
21-09-2005, 04:15 PM
Even if you only spent 30 secs on it that is 30 secs more time than it deserved.
Exactly WHY doesn't the IDEA of a two stage Swiss deserve any thought?

PHAT
21-09-2005, 04:21 PM
It never cesses to amaze me just how utterly wed to tradition, the chess world is - with this thread providing a perfect example.

Can anyone else here think outside the box.

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2005, 04:26 PM
Exactly WHY doesn't the IDEA of a two stage Swiss deserve any thought?It just reeks of a Mickey Mouse solution thought up with about 30 seconds forethought.
In fact you have had two stabs at it and no one has given either the slighest support.

PHAT
21-09-2005, 04:33 PM
It just reeks of a Mickey Mouse solution thought up with about 30 seconds forethought.

What is actually "Micky Mouse" about the basic idea - other than your olfactory perception of it.

In fact you have had two stabs at it and no one has given either the slighest support.

To this I say, "It never cesses to amaze me just how utterly wed to tradition, the chess world is - with this thread providing a perfect example."

four four two
21-09-2005, 04:54 PM
If its a mickey mouse solution then maybe he can get Disney to sponsor it. ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 05:44 PM
i. So, would 11 rounds be OK for norms? If so, no problem. Have 11 rounds in 11 days.

Fine. That's what we already have (not counting rest days). Now your extra rounds of 60-minute rubbish are adding extra time to the tournament and continuing to distort the scores of the top seeds.


Solution 2: Use SP to bar pairings between plapers in the top ~10 seeds for the first phase of 60minute games.

Grossly unfair to seeds 11-15, who might in this time play several of them.


iii I cannot agree that the top ten places in the second phase would be slumming it with ant player not in the top 20 places - let alone in the midfield (#30 to#90) of a 120 player swiss.

Who cares whether you can agree or not? We don't want people in contention for the Aus Champs playing players in P20 (who, in an open event, might be rated sub-2000) in the last few rounds. There should be solid pairings between the top 10 as much as possible in the last 5-6 rounds, rather than these having peaked earlier in the tournament.


It is the idea that matters.

The idea was rubbish too, so why are you complaining? :lol:

(Little? Just how tall are you, Matt?)

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 07:05 PM
I've been largely avoiding this thread as it is too specific about certain juniors rather than being about the general approach. I think this is unfair on the kids. But I do think the age factor is an important thing. But also the level of competition that the kid is exposed to which is a function of the access to coaching, regular strong competition and international representation.

I think it was Tartakower* who said that there was no royal road to chess mastery. However, having money with its associated access to coaches, tournaments and international competition certainly doesn't hurt. I agree and one of the reasons I some juniors have great potential is when they are quite strong though relatively new at the game and has not been hammered into a chess machine by a coach yet, indicating to me that most of their strength is natural. There are a number of juniors in this category and most of them come from more out of the way areas or less financially well-off families. Though they may not be as ratings strong as other juniors, they too haven't had access to the higher level of competition, better coaches, etc.

The junior potential question is a sub plot though. The main issue I think is the special exceptions which are given access to the Aust Champs. Here I think the process has to be as transparent as possible. Whenever personal evaluations are made there will always be questions of the level of subjectivity in those decisions. When you have someone recommending one particular player to play in the championships. You have to be very careful about the level of self-interest that is being served by the recommendation. That is not to say there has been any misrepresentation either now or in the past. Just that the possibility exists and transparency of process is something I'm keen on. It's always hard to work out who is picked if you're going to have exceptions. I have no problem with the Aust Jnr Champ getting a spot as that is a purely objective criterion and helps to enhance the status of that title. However, it is these special nominations are always going to raise eyebrows.

Edit: (* actually who said it is irrelevant as they were paraphrasing Euclid anyway)

firegoat7
21-09-2005, 08:33 PM
Hello,


I think Moultan Ly is a dark horse to win the whole event. This kid has talent to burn with an ICC rating of 3200 at 3 0, he is clearly gifted.

As for everybody elses definition of potential, well the famous Bobby Fischer once stated that he knew somebody who took up chess at 38 that became an IM. Clearly such a talent would not thrive in the current Australian climate.

I think Rincewind (shock,horror I agree with him) and Kerry Stead have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Rules ought not to be twisted just because of subjective biases.The selection process ought to be transparent.

I think the main problem is that the organisers basically need 32 players everytime the event is held. Normally they fall short, hence we have these sort of arguements. Therefore the solution is for the ACF to rectify how they are consistently going to get 32 players.

Here is my solution. Seed the 16 best results from the previous Oz champs with a reserve list to choose from for those that missed out, based on last Oz champs results.

Possibly give the Australian junior champions and Womens champion a berth.

Make the other 14 spots available from qualifying tournaments. The ACF ought to organise a dynamic circuit so that everybody knows in advance how you get in.

My last point. Using ratings as a cut off is a problem. Here is why I think so...
Sydeney (overrated), Melbourne (underated), Tasmania (possibly underated), Western Australia (overated), Canberra (overated), South Australia (severly underated) and Qld (severly underated).

The ratings are loacalised. Regardless of whether you agree with my subjective opinions on this issue, I think everybody agrees that there is some major differences in geographical areas.

I believe that if the ACF makes qualifying a priority over rating those that are improving on the rating list will qualify anyway.

The most important point however, is this principle. By doing away with out dated State qualifying systems you will encourage chess players to travel interstate.
Its about increasing the playing pool, not localising it. See at the moment, nobody from Interstate will travel to play in a State tournament for two reasons. One- they normally last for about 6 weeks. Two- they cannot actually win the titles, nor can they qualify for anything. Lets face it this sort of chess is outdated, its ancient, sure its nice to win a state title, but it does not make for strong Australian chess. Australian ches has to stop acting like a national basketcase and join the International global community.

Remember to ask yourself why does a 2050 player deserve to qualify for an Australian championship based on an 1800 performance rating? Just remember that for the last 20 years nobody from Victoria or N.S.W has qualified via this method. Of course we all know which States are the strongest in chess, so how does this qualifying method actually help increase or improve state chess? I believe it does the exact opposite, it actually makes it worse!

My last point, let us say for arguements sake, suggest that an unqualified junior is actually a dead set champion. Let us say for arguements sake they are as good as Kasparov. Have you ever asked yourself -how will that help Australian chess? Granted there might be some recognition in Australia for chess, but, do you think that this person would actually be playing chess in this country? Somehow I very much doubt it. Lets face it, they will be playing overseas in Europe, following the SuperGM circuit. The spin offs from such a player maybe minimal at best. Ok we might do better at the Olympiad, but would it help to increase the overall standard of Australian chess? I think probably not. You see, for Australian chess to improve we need people playing tournaments in Australia.

We need to grow Australian tournament chess into something special. We need to make these tournaments a showpiece for the ACF and Australian chess, so that they attract so much interest that your next generation of chess players will say.....forget Linares, Wijk ann zee, I want to play at Canberra-Tasmania-Melbourne-Sydney etc etc. Thats where the best chess is.

cheers Fg7

jay_vee
21-09-2005, 08:59 PM
One minor thought on qualification by rating: imho it would be preferable not to have a certain cut-off date at which the rating must be larger than X, but instead require a rating of X on one of the last four (or whatever) rating lists. The reason is obviously that for players close to X, once they are above they might stop playing for fear of losing those decisive few points again. If it's just necessary to have been there once in the past year or so, it actually encourages rated play.

PHAT
21-09-2005, 09:06 PM
Now your extra rounds of 60-minute rubbish are adding extra time to the tournament and continuing to distort the scores of the top seeds.
Solution: Any genuine contentender would be on 4/4 in a field of 120. Therefore modify the two-stage idea to 4 x 60 minute games.
(BTW 60 minute is not "rubbish". )


[Banned pairings 1-10] Grossly unfair to seeds 11-15, who might in this time play several of them.
Solution: Ban pairings of the players who would have been selected in a closed event. In that way the top ~24 would be saved from the rabble. for the first stage (4 x 60 minute games.)


We don't want people in contention for the Aus Champs playing players in P20 (who, in an open event, might be rated sub-2000) in the last few rounds.

I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean P20 = top twenty pairs/


There should be solid pairings between the top 10 as much as possible in the last 5-6 rounds, rather than these having peaked earlier in the tournament.

What do you mean by "solid pairings?"
Solid as in, players know who their opponent will be in there next game, or
Solid as in only 2200 players.

Further, the "peaked earlier" argument is utter nonsense. (You ought to be ashamed of sprouting it.) The more rounds played by a player the more accuritely the Swiss system will place them in the standings - ie, closer to rating order.


(Little? Just how tall are you, Matt?) Same as you. However, while I am 190cm both inside and out, your stature is only physical.

pax
21-09-2005, 09:27 PM
My last point. Using ratings as a cut off is a problem. Here is why I think so...
Sydeney (overrated), Melbourne (underated), Tasmania (possibly underated), Western Australia (overated), Canberra (overated), South Australia (severly underated) and Qld (severly underated).

The ratings are loacalised. Regardless of whether you agree with my subjective opinions on this issue, I think everybody agrees that there is some major differences in geographical areas.

I believe that if the ACF makes qualifying a priority over rating those that are improving on the rating list will qualify anyway.

And how exactly will that help? Believe it or not, tournaments have to be held in physical locations and will have fields of different strength. Some will be easier, some harder to qualify. Much like the current State Championship qualifiers.

Vlad
21-09-2005, 10:55 PM
Hello,


I think Moultan Ly is a dark horse to win the whole event. This kid has talent to burn with an ICC rating of 3200 at 3 0, he is clearly gifted.



It is just saying that the boy knows how to use chess programs. If he really can play 3200 strength in ICC nobody in australia would stand against him.


My last point. Using ratings as a cut off is a problem. Here is why I think so...Sydeney (overrated), Melbourne (underated), Tasmania (possibly underated), Western Australia (overated), Canberra (overated), South Australia (severly underated) and Qld (severly underated).

First, how many last points?:))
Second, if you claim that Canberra is overrated you better stop playing chess, it is dangerous for you, mate.:))



My last point, let us say for arguements sake, suggest that an unqualified junior is actually a dead set champion. Let us say for arguements sake they are as good as Kasparov. Have you ever asked yourself -how will that help Australian chess? Granted there might be some recognition in Australia for chess, but, do you think that this person would actually be playing chess in this country? Somehow I very much doubt it. Lets face it, they will be playing overseas in Europe, following the SuperGM circuit. The spin offs from such a player maybe minimal at best. Ok we might do better at the Olympiad, but would it help to increase the overall standard of Australian chess? I think probably not. You see, for Australian chess to improve we need people playing tournaments in Australia.

We need to grow Australian tournament chess into something special. We need to make these tournaments a showpiece for the ACF and Australian chess, so that they attract so much interest that your next generation of chess players will say.....forget Linares, Wijk ann zee, I want to play at Canberra-Tasmania-Melbourne-Sydney etc etc. Thats where the best chess is.


This point, let me call it second time the last one, confirms what i have said before.:) It is time to think about your life, you know, kids, wife, other things...

Vlad
21-09-2005, 11:06 PM
Age does I believe make a huge difference also the amount of coaching and quality chess opposition the kid has been exposed to thus far (ie how much of displayed talent is natural, pushed or developed). Obviously big centres like Melbourne or Sydney develop talent faster than, say, Alice Springs.

From a mathematical modelling point of view it reminds me of the problem of valuing options on a futures exchange. Perhaps this is a new application of the Black-Scholes equation. Although I doubt there would be a Nobel Prize in it second time around. The question is are they US or European options. :)

How are you going to exercise these options, mate. I would guess you are not gonna kill anybody, are you? This means that the option has to be European. What does Black-Scholes formula has to do with that though?

antichrist
21-09-2005, 11:52 PM
This point, let me call it second time the last one, confirms what i have said before.:) It is time to think about your life, you know, kids, wife, other things...

and nanny

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 11:52 PM
How are you going to exercise these options, mate. I would guess you are not gonna kill anybody, are you? This means that the option has to be European. What does Black-Scholes formula has to do with that though?

It was purely a whimsical thought but I was thinking that stock price is the current rating strength. and the Option value is the mythical "promise" of the youngster. Stock price volatility is rating volatility and risk-free interest rate is the average percentage rating increase for juniors over time, however this has to be considered carefully as compound interest doesn't apply with ratings so perhaps the "-rP" term would need to be replaced with a simple "-r" term. The boundary condition might need work as you probaby want simply P = S at time t=T but maybe there is something to be had there. :hmm:

Equation might run along the lines of

Pt + r S Ps + 1/2 sigma^2 S^2 Pss - r = 0

where Pt, Ps and Pss are partials wrt t and S respectively. This is the B-S with P absent from the 4th term. Mind you the whole post is B-S. ;)

(Edit: S probably needs to be removed from the second term for similar reasons)

jenni
22-09-2005, 10:04 AM
Canberra (overated),
:lol: (he has a sense of humour)

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2005, 04:33 PM
Solution: Any genuine contentender would be on 4/4 in a field of 120. Therefore modify the two-stage idea to 4 x 60 minute games.

Total rubbish, Matt. Even assuming all wins and no upsets, in a field of 120, #1 will be playing about #8 in round 4.

Nick Speck who tied for first in the 2001-2 event before losing the playoff was surely a "genuine contender" by definition.

In round 2 Speck lost to Ian Wright from ACT, ACF rated 1931 at the time and seeded 29th of 32. (Wright had beaten Vladimir Feldman in another upset in round 1, but after these two upsets lost his next five games in a row). And that was at a time limit of G90/+60.


(BTW 60 minute is not "rubbish". )

I was exaggerating, but in comparison to G90/+60 there is a massive difference in the quality of thought that top players can put into the game. Even G90/+60 compared to G90/+30 is a difference, which is why we haven't yet followed FIDE in adopting the latter.


Solution: Ban pairings of the players who would have been selected in a closed event. In that way the top ~24 would be saved from the rabble. for the first stage (4 x 60 minute games.)

Which means that "the players who would have been selected for a closed event" get a massive advantage over those just outside that level, so you haven't got rid of the argument about who gets selected.

Also, have you even seriously considered the maths of pairing when the top 24 players are paired against each other? By my calculations, for 120 players, when your artificial block is removed after four rounds, assuming no upsets, seeds 1-12 (4 points) will be playing seeds 13-24 (also 4 points). On 3 points will be a bunch of seeds from the midfield (I make it seeds 49-58 plus 69) who will have leapfrogged seeds 25-48 (these were all 2/3 but got fed to 1-24 in the previous round). Some winners from these 3/4 games will then be playing the losers from the top 12 pairings, while the lower-end losers from the top 24 players get opponents nearly as strong as they are who have come up to 3/5 from the 2/4 scoregroup. This is even assuming Swiss Perfect can handle being forced to do 24 downfloats in a single round, which I'm betting it would struggle with.

I shouldn't really have to look into things like that for you because you should look for potential problems with your ideas and think them through before presenting them and slagging off others for not seeing the "obvious", then changing the "obvious" when it becomes less so. But you just fire off without thinking things through - which is why your contributions are almost invariably useless.


I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean P20 = top twenty pairs/

No, places.


What do you mean by "solid pairings?"
Solid as in, players know who their opponent will be in there next game, or
Solid as in only 2200 players.

Strong players playing strong players based on results in the tournament. Not top seeds running back into midfielders.


Further, the "peaked earlier" argument is utter nonsense. (You ought to be ashamed of sprouting it.) The more rounds played by a player the more accuritely the Swiss system will place them in the standings - ie, closer to rating order.

Absolute rubbish again and this shows that you have no clue about the Swiss system. It is possible for the system to become less accurate as players run out of similar-strength opponents and some leaders get easier games while others do not. This is what IA Stewart Reuben has to say on this matter:


It should not be assumed increasing the number of rounds will necessarily lead to more accurate placing. If a tournament continues too long, all the leaders will have met and will need to delve into the pack of lower scores. A degree of randomisation may result. Thus there is probably a mini-max number of rounds

To that I would add that I've personally been in tournaments where this sort of thing has happened - one leader gets a midfielder in the final round, while another doesn't, and it's basically a lottery as to which one gets the easy game.


Same as you. However, while I am 190cm both inside and out, your stature is only physical.

You think you're so upstanding but you insult people for no reason then come out with alternatives to their "lack of vision" that are invariably riddled with holes that you were too lazy to look for before putting your silly ideas forward. Obviously your right to call other people "small" under those circumstances is totally forfeit. Why don't you go inflate yourself in some other corner where you won't go crying when your bubble bursts? :hand:

(By the way, I think I'm only 185 cm).

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2005, 04:51 PM
I think Moultan Ly is a dark horse to win the whole event. This kid has talent to burn with an ICC rating of 3200 at 3 0, he is clearly gifted.

Is it a general impression that Moulthun has improved a lot since Mt Buller? Up there I was surprised when people actually congratulated me on getting a draw with him because I thought that Raymond Song was in a class above the other juniors and that Moulthun, Zhigen Wilson Lin etc were all very promising and improving but nothing to be that afraid of. However it seems that since then Moulthun has been doing some serious damage.


I think the main problem is that the organisers basically need 32 players everytime the event is held. Normally they fall short, hence we have these sort of arguements. Therefore the solution is for the ACF to rectify how they are consistently going to get 32 players.

There's no reason why you need 32. It's not a knockout. There is nothing magical about that figure. 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 - there is no big deal between any of these.


Remember to ask yourself why does a 2050 player deserve to qualify for an Australian championship based on an 1800 performance rating?

Has that happened? I cannot think of any state in Australia where an 1800 PR would win you a state title. Even in Tassie the winner's PR is usually something like 2000-2100.

jenni
22-09-2005, 05:39 PM
Is it a general impression that Moulthun has improved a lot since Mt Buller? Up there I was surprised when people actually congratulated me on getting a draw with him because I thought that Raymond Song was in a class above the other juniors and that Moulthun, Zhigen Wilson Lin etc were all very promising and improving but nothing to be that afraid of. However it seems that since then Moulthun has been doing some serious damage.
.

These things are always hard to measure as juniors are an erratic bunch! However Moulthun does seem to be improving almost monthly.

My feeling is that he has improved a lot since Mt Buller. Hard to say until you see him up against the top players in a long time control tournament. I don't think anyone would want to face Moulthun at short time controls.

I think Zhigen is probably quite a bit behind Moulthun at the moment. However it would be nice to see them all in a round robin!

frogmogdog
22-09-2005, 05:54 PM
It is just saying that the boy knows how to use chess programs. If he really can play 3200 strength in ICC nobody in australia would stand against him.


hey drug, that's mean. i've played moulthun loads of 2 min blitz over the board and he's just amazing. admittedly i'm in my dotage but at 3 0 maybe nobody in oz can now stand against him. he's constantly improving, it's never stopped.

jenni
22-09-2005, 07:03 PM
Has that happened? I cannot think of any state in Australia where an 1800 PR would win you a state title. Even in Tassie the winner's PR is usually something like 2000-2100.

Certainly not this year in the ACT. Michael played an average of 1703, with an average score of .86, which gives a PR of over 2000 by my calculations?

Vlad
22-09-2005, 08:13 PM
hey drug, that's mean. i've played moulthun loads of 2 min blitz over the board and he's just amazing. admittedly i'm in my dotage but at 3 0 maybe nobody in oz can now stand against him. he's constantly improving, it's never stopped.

3200 in ICC is more than Short has in ICC (his current rating is 3178). I believe Moulthun is improving but there is no way on earth you can jump so highly if you are in Australia. One has to play against very strong opponents to be able to get to that standard. Just for comaprison, both Smerdon and Zhao are about 2800-2900 in ICC. Statistically 3200 means that Moulthun will win 8-9 games out of 10 against either of them. If that were the case he would score the prefect result in the last Ausstralian champion among yuniors, something that either Smerdon or Zhao would do easily if they played last year.

You are saying that he is amazing against you but I do not even know your name and your rating. If you are one of IMs then I guess i have to take my words back.

Leonid Sandler
22-09-2005, 08:25 PM
Ratings on ICC are quite meaningless,but I hope that ML will be a very good player and all of us will be pleasantly surprised in a not to distant future.

frogmogdog
22-09-2005, 09:38 PM
hi drug - i'm no IM and, oopsies, i didn't mean crushing me is amazing. (blushes)

but i've lost a lot of chess games in my life and, after the first few zeros, can form an opinion whether i'm being whipped by someone playing way over 500 points above me.

don't be so quick to label his icc3200 as compucheating.

PHAT
22-09-2005, 11:16 PM
Even assuming all wins and no upsets, in a field of 120, #1 will be playing about #8 in round 4.

So what? If #1 loses to #8 (in Australia) then they are likely an outsider.


Nick Speck who tied for first in the 2001-2 event before losing the playoff was surely a "genuine contender" by definition.

In round 2 Speck lost to Ian Wright from ACT, ACF rated 1931 at the time and seeded 29th of 32.

It is not sound to design a system that can cope with ALL up-sets. Such a system will by its nature requires a 119 rounds. One advantage of the swiss system is that up-sets are mostly recoverable fromable.



Which means that "the players who would have been selected for a closed event" get a massive advantage over those just outside that level, so you haven't got rid of the argument about who gets selected.

I cannot agree. It is a similar advantage to the "accelerated swiss." A bitin the first half, but it disipates over successive rounds.


Also, have you even seriously considered the maths of pairing when the top 24 players are paired against each other? By my calculations, ...

FMD. All those calcs! You look through the microscope when you should be using the telescope. The details you claim kill the "two stage swiss concept" are obscuring the big picture.


I shouldn't really have to look into things like that for you ...

You don't have to do it at all, because it is premature analysis. You are trying to identify the species by examining the foetus.


... because you should look for potential problems with your ideas and think them through before presenting them and slagging off others for not seeing the "obvious", then changing the "obvious" when it becomes less so.

You are a sad case. You, I have come to realise, are no different from the other positivists and autistics that infest chess. You do not appear to under stand that a discussion IS NOT a lecture or published paper.



But you just fire off without thinking things through - which is why your contributions are almost invariably useless.

I am proud of the fact that I do not give a shit that I have half baked ideas. I put them out into the arena to see if they have potential. I do not NEED to be right. My ego is healthy enough that I do not have the NEED to appear perfect. I am OK with OK.


Absolute rubbish again and this shows that you have no clue about the Swiss system. It is possible for the system to become less accurate as players run out of similar-strength opponents and some leaders get easier games while others do not. This is what IA Stewart Reuben has to say on this matter:"It should not be assumed increasing the number of rounds will necessarily lead to more accurate placing. If a tournament continues too long, all the leaders will have met and will need to delve into the pack of lower scores. A degree of randomisation may result. Thus there is probably a mini-max number of rounds"

You need to reread his last sentense. Then take note of this Sweeney statment: There is no optimum number of rounds with the maximum accuracy. Don't argue with me, ask RW. Rubin is W-R-O-N-G.



To that I would add that I've personally been in tournaments where this sort of thing has happened - one leader gets a midfielder in the final round, while another doesn't, and it's basically a lottery as to which one gets the easy game.

I knew a bloke who won $10, 000 on the pokies. I think I might take up playing them.




... then come out with alternatives to their "lack of vision" that are invariably riddled with holes that you were too lazy to look for before putting your silly ideas forward.

No, not lazy. I am not into spending an hour arranging a bunch of flowers so someone can look at them and say "We need white lillies, not carnations.


(By the way, I think I'm only 185 cm).

Short arse.

Alan Shore
22-09-2005, 11:40 PM
hi drug - i'm no IM and, oopsies, i didn't mean crushing me is amazing. (blushes)

but i've lost a lot of chess games in my life and, after the first few zeros, can form an opinion whether i'm being whipped by someone playing way over 500 points above me.

don't be so quick to label his icc3200 as compucheating.

I can confirm Moulthun's rating is legit. He's immensely strong tactically in quick time controls (3 0). However when you look at internet ratings they can be deceiving - it's dependent on what opponents you're playing against (I find if you play these high rated opponents it's easier to win the odd game and gain points), whether it's just random games or in a tournament and the length of time (2 12 is the same category as 3 0 - so it's not all that standardised).

So yes it might be inflated and possibly overrated but he doesn't use computers.

(In fact, about 6 years ago I got into an online argument with Firegoat7 when he accused me of using a computer to get a high rating when I wasn't - I was merely eeking players with inflated provisional ratings which is quite legal, although they've tweaked the rating system somewhat since then to prevent it I think).

Rhubarb
23-09-2005, 01:28 AM
hi drug - i'm no IM and, oopsies, i didn't mean crushing me is amazing. (blushes)

but i've lost a lot of chess games in my life and, after the first few zeros, can form an opinion whether i'm being whipped by someone playing way over 500 points above me.

don't be so quick to label his icc3200 as compucheating.From this, fmd, we can deduce that you blushingly admit that your rating is below 2700. Do we have any players here - in the 2700-3200 range of course - who can ever so modestly aver that Vlad doesn't know what he's talking about?

frogmogdog
23-09-2005, 09:41 AM
aw kegless, i was talking about real ratings. everyone knows those internet ones can be... like.... um... real unreliable. (but not necessarily due to cheating)

Vlad
23-09-2005, 12:29 PM
aw kegless, i was talking about real ratings. everyone knows those internet ones can be... like.... um... real unreliable. (but not necessarily due to cheating)

What is real rating in relative world? Why do you think ACF is better than ICC rating? When you say everyone do you mean yourself, who else?

I guess ACF and ICC ratings are different in many aspects and both have their weak and strong points. One clear strong point for ICC is that there is no lag. If you have improved your rating will adjust almost immediately. Weak point of ICC is that it measures your blitz rather than standard.

You are saying the numbers do not say much. Well, if you are talking about a difference in 100 or even 200 points you are right but once you start talking of something about 1000 then I disagree. There is a clear correlation between ACF and FIDE. Good IMs on ICC are about 2800-2900, say Smerdon, Zhao, Wallace, etc. Good FMs are up to 2700, say George Xie. Try to find somebody who is rated 2000 on ACF list and has 2800+ in ICC. I think it is very unlikely.

In any case I think what happened was that fg7 made a mistake. Instead of putting 2300 he misplaced the first 2 figures.

All this discussion reminds me a story that happened to then the world champion Alexander Alekhin. He was supposed to play a friendly game with somebody he met the first time in his life. He suggested to his opponent that he will play without a piece. Opponent asked - why do you do that? You do not even know who I am. Well, this is exactly why I can play without a piece against you - replied Alekhin. The morale is clear - to get to a certain level you have to play against the strongest and you can't jump in no time from 2000 player to a grandmaster.

frogmogdog
23-09-2005, 07:20 PM
hey drug dude, i hear what yer saying. in fact, i'm not picking a fight with you or anything because, oddly enough, i basically agree.

oh incidentally, i checked icc and 3200 was his top rating (not 2300).

anyway, with your points in mind, could one BELIEVE this kid to be a SPECIAL case?

now, i've been watching and playing him since he first rocked up to our junior club as a beginner 3 years ago. in that time, i have witnessed the unbelieveable -- so now i'm a believer!

take no notice of his ACF2000 rating, even bill might admit that he's seriously underrated.

if i recall correctly, in recent tournaments he's scored 3.5/4 against solo. that includes rapid and lightning tournaments but then i guess that's my point.

and in his last standard tournament he scored a picket fence 7/7, including wins over 2391, 2189, 2108 and 2052.

i reckon he's now FM-ish strength at standard time limits and GM strength at hypersonic speed. sure, his 3200 icc rating might have involved beating a lot of computers or whatever, and i agree it's not likely he's scoring 90% against smerdon et al, but i'm sure he's not cheating, he has no need to. if you play him 3 0 sometime, feel the force and be very afraid!

frogmogdog
23-09-2005, 07:41 PM
PS. here's something for the historians, a 722 performance by ML at lightning on 6 Sept 2002.

http://uqconnect.net/~zzagunn/sjcc/results/2002/02lightning.htm

Kevin Bonham
23-09-2005, 08:09 PM
Certainly not this year in the ACT. Michael played an average of 1703, with an average score of .86, which gives a PR of over 2000 by my calculations?

Also his crude PR is dragged down by his first round game with a player rated 1196. Take that win out and he has 8.5/10 vs average field of 1754 which is a 2050 performance.

Re all this stuff about Moulthun's rating in 3 0 chess, 3 0 is faster than normal blitz and is not a very reliable indicator of strength or potential at faster time limits.


So what? If #1 loses to #8 (in Australia) then they are likely an outsider.

Likely's not enough (and I disagree anyway, #1 losing to #8 once does not prove that them likely to not be the best player). Especially not for your generalisation that "Any genuine contentender would be on 4/4." That is an absolute statement that can be disproven by one counterexample. I have given a counterexample which, in effect, disproves it.


It is not sound to design a system that can cope with ALL up-sets. Such a system will by its nature requires a 119 rounds. One advantage of the swiss system is that up-sets are mostly recoverable fromable.

True but you do not want someone to recover their way to an Australian championship after spending half the tournament muddling around the midfield of an Open Swiss.


I cannot agree. It is a similar advantage to the "accelerated swiss." A bitin the first half, but it disipates over successive rounds.

That's total nonsense because an accelerated swiss disadvantages the top quarter over the first two rounds (a more extreme extension of the general Swiss system of sorting the field by giving the best players tougher games) - your proposed system outrageously advantages the top 24 over the first four.


FMD. All those calcs! You look through the microscope when you should be using the telescope. The details you claim kill the "two stage swiss concept" are obscuring the big picture.

I looked at a 100 randomly sampled cells with my microscope and discovered a 99% chance that the whole whale had terminal cancer. :P You cannot write off a disproof of your system with airy-fairy rubbish like the above. You have to present an example that works before your so-called "big picture" or your criticism of those not adopting it means anything. Often the reason that big pictures have never been painted is that others have tried and failed to make them work and fools like you are repeating that waste of energy.


You don't have to do it at all, because it is premature analysis. You are trying to identify the species by examining the foetus.

Whatever the species is, the foetus is certainly stillborn. :hand:


You do not appear to under stand that a discussion IS NOT a lecture or published paper. p

I do understand that but many of the same practices for working out whether things are true or not apply. If you really were suitably modest about the limitations of your ideas you would lay off the criticism of others for supposed failings that you cannot prove.


I am proud of the fact that I do not give a shit that I have half baked ideas. I put them out into the arena to see if they have potential. I do not NEED to be right. My ego is healthy enough that I do not have the NEED to appear perfect. I am OK with OK.

Your ideas are not OK, they are almost invariably rubbish, and you do not appear perfect but far too close to the opposite. If you do not need to be right then you should not need to slag others who you cannot prove are wrong.


You need to reread his last sentense. Then take note of this Sweeney statment: There is no optimum number of rounds with the maximum accuracy. Don't argue with me, ask RW. Rubin is W-R-O-N-G.

Once again, evidence or fries?


I knew a bloke who won $10, 000 on the pokies. I think I might take up playing them.

Irrelevant. The correct counter-analogy is "I knew a bloke who lost $10 000 on the pokies. I think I might be careful about playing them without further analysis, especially since further analysis has shown that the house has rigged the machine not to deliver 90% of the claimed jackpots".


No, not lazy. I am not into spending an hour arranging a bunch of flowers so someone can look at them and say "We need white lillies, not carnations.

No, you're into walking into the flower show hall, trashing all the orchids and daffodils and saying you will come back with the prettiest bouquet ever seen, then walking back in three months later with a week-dead gorse flower that's so riddled with pests it has to be quarantined.

jenni
24-09-2005, 10:59 AM
but i'm sure he's not cheating, he has no need to. if you play him 3 0 sometime, feel the force and be very afraid!

Absolutely agree with this - there is no way he is cheating. He scored 7.5 at the world youth last year (Under 14's) and 7 this year. They are extraordinary scores for Aussie kids overseas and he has come from nowhere to this in a few years.

ICC rewards people who play a lot and you do move up and down quickly as well

His current ratings are



Bullet 2588 games played 12,036 top rating 2765
Blitz 3068 5,403 top rating 3208
Standard 2216 375 2218
5 minute 2300 1,233 2346
1 minute 2267 6,701 2440
correspondence 1749 34 1762



If he was going to cheat I think he would be cheating for all his scores. He just plays an enormous amount and is incredibly good at fast chess. (Well all chess, but particularly the faster stuff.)

Davidflude
24-09-2005, 01:50 PM
The radical alternative is to abandon the closed format and run an Australian open every year. This avoids all hassles about who qualifies.

Flavoured Dude.

P.S. The Dumpling King is great as are several other eating places near the Box Hill Chess Club.

four four two
24-09-2005, 03:26 PM
Another radical alternative is to have a championship every year with more flexible qualifying and better sponsorship.Why are we the only country in the developed world with their championship every 2 years.? :hmm:

Denis_Jessop
24-09-2005, 05:31 PM
We already have a thread (Should Aus Champs etc) on which both these ideas have been floated and debated. Indeed, they were the reason for the creation of that thread. What's the point of this separate one?:hmm:

DJ

Alan Shore
24-09-2005, 06:48 PM
We already have a thread (Should Aus Champs etc) on which both these ideas have been floated and debated. Indeed, they were the reason for the creation of that thread. What's the point of this separate one?:hmm:

DJ

Whee, posting in a thread that will be locked.

Kind of surprised at the Aus Champs scrutnity - where was all this when the pathetic Australian (Vic.) Masters was held?

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2005, 06:11 PM
Moderation Note: Many largely off-topic posts have been removed. This was a lot of work as several off-topic discussions were going on backwards and forwards alongside ones that were on-topic (at least indirectly). From now on, clearly off-topic posts on this thread will be deleted without warning. If you wish to discuss this, please do so on the "your feedback" thread and not this one.


The radical alternative is to abandon the closed format and run an Australian open every year. This avoids all hassles about who qualifies.

... but would also require careful handling of the issue of prizemoney for local players compared with overseas players.

Also, a point I made against opening up this year's Champs to a wider range of foreign titled players was that you don't want to risk having an Australian Championship title awarded to someone who finishes, say, seventh in a big Swiss dominated by international GMs. One or two overseas GMs in the Aus Champs is fine but too many will affect the validity of Swiss System results.

Denis_Jessop
25-09-2005, 06:16 PM
I refer right back to #1 on this thread where I mentioned that the ACF Council was considering a motion for special steps regarding the upcoming Australian Championships in light of the wish of some overseas players to play in Australia en route to Queenstown.

I can now inform you that the Council, by e-mail vote and a decisive majority, has resolved not to relax the qualifying rules for this year's event. As has been mentioned, some overseas players are playing (eg GMs Ftacnik and Chandler) but they are catered for by the existing rules.

I understand that some attempts had been made to organise a separate tournament to attract the overseas players wanting to play here but they did not come to anything. I'm not sure if there are still any such plans.

DJ

PS I thought I had posted this on here about 30 mins ago (before Kevin's) but it wound up somewhere else and in the meantime lots of recent postings have also gone as explained by Kevin.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2005, 08:51 PM
PS I thought I had posted this on here about 30 mins ago (before Kevin's) but it wound up somewhere else and in the meantime lots of recent postings have also gone as explained by Kevin.

It was on the tail end of a large number of posts and when I was making notes on which posts to move, at a certain point I just wrote "move all the rest" and then yours must have been added between me reviewing the posts and marking those to move/delete. Apologies. As you've reposted the info above, I've deleted the previous posting which I moved to the wrong thread.