PDA

View Full Version : Australian grand prix



chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:19 PM
This is what Paul S posted about the grandprix in the tournaments section.
===============================================

From my perspective, the Grand Prix (GP) was well run by Norm Braybrooke until 13/2/03 which appears to be when he resigned. Since 13/2/03 (or probably just prior to - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF email Bulletins for the exact date), nobody wanted to run the GP for a period of about 6 weeks until David Cordover took it on. Before people start critisizing David too much for the poor state of the GP since 13/2/03, I think we should ALL keep in mind that at least David had a go at doing something that NOBODY else was prepared to take on.

From what I can see the only 2 times since 13/2/03 that results on the GP have been updated happened to appear about 2 weeks after I made a BB post on this matter (from memory one in June and one in September - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF BB posts for the exact dates of these 2 posts of mine).

I think it is disgraceful that as of today (24/1/04) the 2003 results have not yet been made public! Also, it appears to me that the ACF considers the GP to be a very low priority - I notice that there is now no longer even a BB link for the GP!!! It seems to me that in 2004 the chess community can expect the same sort of "service" wrt the GP as it had in 2003.

I think that the NSWCA should not support the Grand Prix any more and as a NSWCA member (and player in some of their tournaments), I object to NSWCA tournament prizemoney being reduced (and/or entry fees being increased) to pay for Grand Prix fees. For example, I object to the impost of Grand Prix fees for the NSWCA's Australia Day Weekender when tournament chess players are not provided with even the basic service of regular score (progress) updates on the GP. What value do chess players currently get from the GP?

For the NSWCA Australia Day Weekender I would have preferred to see discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed etc instead of this money being wasted on GP fees. That is, instead of $70 adult/$40 Junior (with GP fees) to have $70 adult/$55 pensioner/$40 Junior (with no money wasted on GP fees) with prizemoney ($3300) remaining the same. I reckon the NSWCA would have got a few more entries at the Australia Day Weekender if they had done this.

How can players have an interest in the GP when the progress scores are not updated regularly? To me it seems that the only beneficiary of the GP at present is David Cordover, who gets a free plug for his business each week in the ACF's weekly email Bulletin.

If the 2004 GP is going to be run as poorly as the 2003 GP then we should can the 2004 GP right now!

chesslover
24-01-2004, 07:23 PM
This is what the Grand Poobah said in reply

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think if we're going to have a naming rights or advertising type situation with the GP again then there should be specified targets in terms of points updates and processing of events.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 10:15 PM
Poll shows more people want grandprix scrapped than for it to stay. WHY on earth would people want the grand prix to be scrapped? :? :?

Maybe there are problems with the grandprix, in relation to it's format, tournament composition, points scoring, results dessimation etc, but that does not mean the grand prix has to be scrapped - merely "tweaked", or reformatted or restructured.

Think about what would happen if there is no grand prix? You would have a host of unrelated tournamens all over Australia, run by state chess associations, run by individuals and there would be no way to link them altogether., or have a national chess circuit

If you look at all sports - individual and team - that is successful, a national league/ tour circuit has been a cornostone of their marketing and promotion.

League (NRL), Aussie Rules (AFL), Soccer (NSL) and Union (Super 12) all had state wide comps before they all saw the benefit of a national comp.

Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example

I think the grand prix for chess is a good idea, and to scrap it will be a bad regressive and detrimental move for australian chess, and our dream to make chess a sport and make it attractive for sponsors

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2004, 12:21 AM
Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example

Actually while Bathurst is technically double points the points are split between the two drivers, so winning Bathurst is worth the same to the driver in points as a clean sweep in any other round.

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2004, 02:18 AM
Poll shows more people want grandprix scrapped than for it to stay.

At the time you said that at most three people had voted.

All the poll really showed at that stage was that two people who had been among the first to vote wanted the GP scrapped. It is not a meaningful result at that stage.

arosar
25-01-2004, 01:09 PM
When I used to play regularly, I never really thought about the GP. I don't even know how it works but I imagine score more points in tourn, then score more points in GP, right? Basically, I don't give a flippin' stuff about it. Having said that, it should still be retained and tweaked. From a purely marketing perspective, some sort of a GP system is attractive to potential sponsors I think. You can say to them, "Look we have this series of tourneys that can attract lotsa players and some occassional stars like GMs - so you get a lot of exposure, etc, etc. We'll put your logo on scoresheets, websites, flyers and so on".

Btw, what ever happened to that Super GP/Grand Slam idea?

AR

Bob1
25-01-2004, 03:32 PM
who makes up these surveys ?
the use of the word "radical" seems a little emotive in one of the survey choices.

I personally think it would be foolish to abandon the GP completely without exploring other options to enhance it further. (not sure that such changes need to be radical though)

If it is to be a national event it needs to be relevant to the smaller states.
It is highly unlikely that a player from Tasmania, WA, SA or NT will win a prize due to the cost of travel to the events - however it may be a mechanism where these states can attract visiting players to their events.

I would like to work out what the goals & objectives are for the series as it stands today and explore the future.

Anyone got any ideas?

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 03:37 PM
who makes up these surveys ?
the use of the word "radical" seems a little emotive in one of the survey choices.
Anyone who starts a topic on the BB can attach a Poll to the thread.

So in this case the choice of words is its CL's fault. ;)

It is my understanding that the current GP model is based on Jason's revamp of a few years back.

chesslover
25-01-2004, 03:58 PM
Similarly V8 racing, golf and tennis all have a tour circuit, with points allocated that will determine the "winner" of the tournaments, and the relative importance of the tournaments. For example bathurst 1000 here is more imprtant and gets more points allocated than a V8 round in Oran park or Sandown for example

Actually while Bathurst is technically double points the points are split between the two drivers, so winning Bathurst is worth the same to the driver in points as a clean sweep in any other round.

are you sure? I am happy to be wrong, but I was under the impression that both the drivers got the double points - not split it

My favourite winter sports are Rugby League, but I am also interested in Sydney Swans, F1 and Bathurst 1000 - but do not "follow" the V8 circuit to the same extent as F1 circuit

I guess the point is that if we needed to chess too can have a couple of the more important tournaments, like the Doberl, have higher grand prix points - just like bathurst 1000

chesslover
25-01-2004, 04:08 PM
When I used to play regularly, I never really thought about the GP.

Basically, I don't give a flippin' stuff about it. Having said that, it should still be retained and tweaked. From a purely marketing perspective, some sort of a GP system is attractive to potential sponsors I think. You can say to them, "Look we have this series of tourneys that can attract lotsa players and some occassional stars like GMs - so you get a lot of exposure, etc, etc. We'll put your logo on scoresheets, websites, flyers and so on".

Btw, what ever happened to that Super GP/Grand Slam idea?

AR

I agree with you AR

I think that in principle the grand prix is a good idea, and all credit to jason for his initiative on it.

In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year. This will also increase the level of players playing in the weekenders

I note that people have stated that the granmd prix is eastern australia centric....but so what? Most of Australia lives in the Eastern Australia, and NSW with about 7 million people is the most populas, richest and most powerful state in Australia. The fact that many grand prix tourneys are in East Australia, and NSW, is reflective of the ground realities of teh importance of these states...

I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have. Currently our NSW Australia Day chessweekender, has the same level of grand prix staus and points as these long established and important tournaments. By having a Cat 4 definition for these 4 tournaments, and the increase in points available in the grand prix we will increase the number of top players, and "normal" players who compete

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 04:19 PM
In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.


I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have. Currently our NSW Australia Day chessweekender, has the same level of grand prix staus and points as these long established and important tournaments. By having a Cat 4 definition for these 4 tournaments, and the increase in points available in the grand prix we will increase the number of top players, and "normal" players who compete
Perhaps before making this suggestion you should check out some history.
The GP used to have tournament Cats 1-5.
When Jason revamped the GP the cats 1-5 were reduced to cats 1-3 with a differnt point scale.

I'm sure Jason can provide more details.

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2004, 04:35 PM
are you sure? I am happy to be wrong, but I was under the impression that both the drivers got the double points - not split it


That may have been the case in 2002 (not sure), but in 2003 Bathurst was effectively single points with 192 each for the winners (same result as winning every race at any other round) - checked this on the V8 supercars website.

chesslover
25-01-2004, 04:45 PM
In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.


May I respectfully point out that you are wrong ;)

In tennis, F1 and V8, there are tournaments with points allocated to those who place in the tournaments ie in F1, 10 points for first, 8 for second, 6 for 3rd, 5 for 4th, etc. There are 17 tournaments on the F 1 circuit, and the person who has won the most points is crowned teh world champ for that year. The fact that most F1 races are in Europe, just 3 in the americas, 2 in Asia is not a factor - analogous to people stating that most of the grand prix events are in Eastern Australia.

This is the same for the V8 championships - there are 13 races and points are awarded on where the drivers finished, with the driver with the most points, Amrose, being crowned the champ.

In tennis and golf, the grand prix circuit, form the basis for the rating points of the tennis players and golf players, which in turn determine there world ranking

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 05:56 PM
In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that. That is how it is done for Tennis, Golf, F1 and V8, and there is a a lot of excitement and interest and people follow the progress of their favourite players throughout teh grand prix year.
It isnt done that way in tennis or golf at all. Their is no GP circuit determing who is the number 1.
You could simply consider the number 1's in tennis or golf as being based on a sort of rating system.

Even in F1 it is a dangerous analogy.

Schuy is clearly the best driver, the Kasparov of F1 but if he only participated in a handul of events during the year because lets say he had a very serious crash and was out for a substancial part he would not win the F1 crown. He would still be acknowledged as the number 1 driver just not the F1 champion.


May I respectfully point out that you are wrong ;)

In tennis, F1 and V8, there are tournaments with points allocated to those who place in the tournaments ie in F1, 10 points for first, 8 for second, 6 for 3rd, 5 for 4th, etc. There are 17 tournaments on the F 1 circuit, and the person who has won the most points is crowned teh world champ for that year. The fact that most F1 races are in Europe, just 3 in the americas, 2 in Asia is not a factor - analogous to people stating that most of the grand prix events are in Eastern Australia.
I wasnt even talking about location. That was you.

Yes I'm aware how F1 races have points allocated.

You however was implyng that the player who scored the most points in a chess GP should be considered number one.
In F1 that is not the case. They are simply considered the F1 world champion. The best driver(number 1) is not necessarily the champ.



In tennis and golf, the grand prix circuit, form the basis for the rating points of the tennis players and golf players, which in turn determine there world ranking
Thats true however the point I was trying to make is that rankings based on GP points is not necessarily a true representation of merit.
Tiger 5oods can win a event by 5 strokes from any other competitor however in another GP event where Woods does not compete the winner of that may win it by 1 stroke from all other players. The two events however may be equal in GP points allocated.

Garvinator
25-01-2004, 06:17 PM
In F1 that is not the case. They are simply considered the F1 world champion. The best driver(number 1) is not necessarily the champ.
also in this case the best driver may not be in the best car and so would not be world champion.

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 06:27 PM
In F1 that is not the case. They are simply considered the F1 world champion. The best driver(number 1) is not necessarily the champ.
also in this case the best driver may not be in the best car and so would not be world champion.
Exactly.

paulb
25-01-2004, 08:58 PM
Glad to hear the GP is close to everyone's hearts.

As it happens, we need a GP co-ordinator for 2004.

I haven't done this job, so I don't know all the details, but I know it involves keeping track of the tournaments, calculating results, communicating with tourney organisers and invoicing for the fees.

Anyone interested, please email me: broekhuysep@bigpond.com

chesslover
25-01-2004, 08:59 PM
Okay Bill, I accept your point that the best F1 driver EVER, Schumacher, may not be the world champ for the year based on grand prix performance, due to not having the best car and other factors..

so what?

Does that mean there is no need to have a F1 grand prix circuit every year, as Schumacher is the best ever F1 driver? :rolleyes:

The F1 world still holds a grand prix, as does V8 racing, as does golf, as does tennis...all individual based sports, like chess...

The need for a NATIONAL league is seen by these individual based sports as well as team sports. Rugby League, Aussie Rules, Union all took their respective sports to another level when they went national.

Previously there was just the NSWRL and QRL based state comps - now there is the national NRL comp. Previously there were state based VFL, SAFL and WAFL - now there is a national AFL comp. Previoulsy there were state based NSW and Queensland Rugby comps, now there is the SUper 12's.

All of this shows the desirability of having a national grand prix circuit, with points being allocated that will determine the best player for the year in Australian chess

Thank you very much

ursogr8
25-01-2004, 09:34 PM
I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have.

hi CL

Box Hill has not run a rated week-ender in the past 20 years to my knowledge. So you are perhaps wide of the mark on this data-point.

We do however intend to run the VIC OPEN this year; details will be posted on a dedicated thread. Web-site has been constructed.

starter

chesslover
25-01-2004, 10:54 PM
hi CL

Box Hill has not run a rated week-ender in the past 20 years to my knowledge. So you are perhaps wide of the mark on this data-point.

We do however intend to run the VIC OPEN this year; details will be posted on a dedicated thread. Web-site has been constructed.

starter

me bad - typo :oops:

meant ballarat's begonia open, but typed box hill instead :oops: after all both are in victoria, starts with a B, and I guess all mexicans places look alike :P

chesslover
25-01-2004, 10:57 PM
Glad to hear the GP is close to everyone's hearts.

As it happens, we need a GP co-ordinator for 2004.


so david does not want to be the coordinator this year? even with the free plug he gets for that?

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 11:00 PM
Okay Bill, I accept your point that the best F1 driver EVER, Schumacher, may not be the world champ for the year based on grand prix performance, due to not having the best car and other factors..
About time.


so what?

Does that mean there is no need to have a F1 grand prix circuit every year, as Schumacher is the best ever F1 driver? :rolleyes:
Are you just naturally stupid or do you have to work at it. :-''

I'll try and say this as simply as possible so that you can understand. :rolleyes:

You said:

[In an IDEAL world the chess grand prix, should be akin to the Tennis, golf, F1 or V8 circuit, with the number 1 player in Australia being derived from that.

I argued that the winner of a GP did not necessarily equate to the number 1 player.


I never suggested there was no need for a chess GP.

I just suggested your statement was wrong.



All of this shows the desirability of having a national grand prix circuit, with points being allocated that will determine the best player for the year in Australian chess
No it doesnt determine that at all.
All it determines is that a particular player won the GP, not that they are the best player in Australia. ](*,)



Thank you very much
Thanks for nothing, you posted crap. =;

chesslover
25-01-2004, 11:12 PM
I argued that the winner of a GP did not necessarily equate to the number 1 player.

I never suggested there was no need for a chess GP.


All of this shows the desirability of having a national grand prix circuit, with points being allocated that will determine the best player for the year in Australian chess
No it doesnt determine that at all.
All it determines is that a particular player won the GP, not that they are the best player in Australia. ](*,)


Supreme Leader why cannot you understand this concept?

a person who wins the grand prix circuit - like the person who wins the F1 circuit, V8 circuit, tennis's ATP circuit, Golf's circuit - is the best player for that year in Australia. He/she may not be the best player in the country, but in terms of the grand prix circuit they are.

It is just like Schumacher is the best F1 driver (a record 6 titles, beating fangio's 5), but if Webber beats him this year, then for 2004 Webber is the F1 Champ - even though Schumacher is the best driver

Thus for example if Matt Sweeney gets the most grand prix points in 2004, then he should be the best player for 2004, even though Rogers is our best player

If you do not agree with that, then WHY on earth do F1, V8, Tennis, golf etc all hold the equivalent of our grand prix year after year?

Garvinator
25-01-2004, 11:21 PM
If you do not agree with that, then WHY on earth do F1, V8, Tennis, golf etc all hold the equivalent of our grand prix year after year?

money and contracts.

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 11:27 PM
I argued that the winner of a GP did not necessarily equate to the number 1 player.

I never suggested there was no need for a chess GP.


All of this shows the desirability of having a national grand prix circuit, with points being allocated that will determine the best player for the year in Australian chess
No it doesnt determine that at all.
All it determines is that a particular player won the GP, not that they are the best player in Australia. ](*,)


Supreme Leader why cannot you understand this concept?

a person who wins the grand prix circuit - like the person who wins the F1 circuit, V8 circuit, tennis's ATP circuit, Golf's circuit - is the best player for that year in Australia. He/she may not be the best player in the country, but in terms of the grand prix circuit they are.
You have that all wrong.
He is not the best player. He is simply the GP winner.


It is just like Schumacher is the best F1 driver (a record 6 titles, beating fangio's 5), but if Webber beats him this year, then for 2004 Webber is the F1 Champ - even though Schumacher is the best driver
Finally you said something right.
Webber would be the F1 Champ. He would not necessarily be the best driver. Hence he is not number 1.


Thus for example if Matt Sweeney gets the most grand prix points in 2004, then he should be the best player for 2004, even though Rogers is our best player
Apert from the fact that if that happened Matt would be subjected to a swab, he would still just be the GP winner not the best player.


If you do not agree with that, then WHY on earth do F1, V8, Tennis, golf etc all hold the equivalent of our grand prix year after year?
ggrayggray answered that one.

jase
26-01-2004, 01:11 AM
This was an interesting thread for a while. Then Bill and CL got going.

I've posted on this topic in the 'tournaments' section so I will try to be brief here.

The Grand Prix was dead about 4 years ago. The number of tournaments were in single figures. It was something I believed in, to promote chess, to appeal to sponsors, and to mesh a quite disparate chess community.

Seemed like a a good idea at the time. I tweaked the format - basically to simplify it. This idea of "super" GP tournaments was achieved by giving them the highest category status. However I also narrowed the categories to ensure that achievement in the smaller tournaments would be significant - this is important for the smaller states to be involved, to contribute.

I prepared a media kit for every tournament [I think I got 40 tournaments on board]. They got a press release, scoresheets, a g1 page blurb on steps to boost media coverage of their event, some A# glossy posters, and probably other stuff that I can't think of right now because I just got home from being in a chess hall for 28 hours in one weekend.

Okay, this may sound very optimistic, or naive, but...my idea was to put all the good ideas in place, that's what I can do, and then others would have to step in and maintain the momentum and goodwill, and ultimately, net a small but long-term sponsor [like $5-10k a year].

I made it clear from the beginning that I would do all the creative stuff to revive the Grand Prix, but that I was unwilling to keep the scores, and maintain the website. The ACF [ie Graeme] got Helen Thompson, from Qld, as the administrator. She didn't see out the year. Norm took over from her, seemed to do a good job, until passing the reins to David Cordover.

David is a good bloke, at heart; buggered if I know what's happened, but it's all gone pear-shaped.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:22 AM
i have taken the small liberty of transfering the posts from the grand prix thread in tournament news and results, in a hope to make things easier for everyone :D . This means we no longer have to play simuls :D

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:22 AM
posted by dom:

Can somebody tell me where i can view the results of the 03 grand prix?

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:24 AM
posted by dom:


Can somebody tell me where i can view the results of the 03 grand prix?

Post by Paul S:

Hi Mr Dom

IMHO the answer to your question is that George Howard and/or Paul Broekhuyse have by now got in touch with Grand Prix Co-Ordinator David Cordover to get him to submit these results ASAP and that you will probably see them in the next (or week afetr next) ACF email bulletin.

From my perspective, the Grand Prix (GP) was well run by Norm Braybrooke until 13/2/03 which appears to be when he resigned. Since 13/2/03 (or probably just prior to - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF email Bulletins for the exact date), nobody wanted to run the GP for a period of about 6 weeks until David Cordover took it on. Before people start critisizing David too much for the poor state of the GP since 13/2/03, I think we should ALL keep in mind that at least David had a go at doing something that NOBODY else was prepared to take on.

From what I can see the only 2 times since 13/2/03 that results on the GP have been updated happened to appear about 2 weeks after I made a BB post on this matter (from memory one in June and one in September - I'm too lazy to troll through old ACF BB posts for the exact dates of these 2 posts of mine).

I think it is disgraceful that as of today (24/1/04) the 2003 results have not yet been made public! Also, it appears to me that the ACF considers the GP to be a very low priority - I notice that there is now no longer even a link for the GP on the ACF website!!! It seems to me that in 2004 the chess community can expect the same sort of "service" wrt the GP as it had in 2003.

I think that the NSWCA should not support the Grand Prix any more and as a NSWCA member (and player in some of their tournaments), I object to NSWCA tournament prizemoney being reduced (and/or entry fees being increased) to pay for Grand Prix fees. For example, I object to the impost of Grand Prix fees for the NSWCA's Australia Day Weekender when tournament chess players are not provided with even the basic service of regular score (progress) updates on the GP. What value do chess players currently get from the GP?

For the NSWCA Australia Day Weekender I would have preferred to see discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed etc instead of this money being wasted on GP fees. That is, instead of $70 adult/$40 Junior (with GP fees) to have $70 adult/$55 pensioner/$40 Junior (with no money wasted on GP fees) with prizemoney ($3300) remaining the same. I reckon the NSWCA would have got a few more entries at the Australia Day Weekender if they had done this.

How can players have an interest in the GP when the progress scores are not updated regularly? To me it seems that the only beneficiary of the GP at present is David Cordover, who gets a free plug for his business each week in the ACF's weekly email Bulletin.

If the 2004 GP is going to be run as poorly as the 2003 GP then we should can the 2004 GP right now!

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:27 AM
Kevin Bonham posted:

I think if we're going to have a naming rights or advertising type situation with the GP again then there should be specified targets in terms of points updates and processing of events.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:28 AM
jase posted:

I put a lot of work into resurrecting the Grand prix a few years ago.

I'm appalled by it's neglect over the last 12 months.

David Cordover entered into an agreement and has not upheld his end of the deal. If I were a State Association I'd be quite reluctant to commit tournies to the concept now that Chess World has buried it.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:30 AM
arosar posted:

jase wrote:

David Cordover entered into an agreement and has not upheld his end of the deal. If I were a State Association I'd be quite reluctant to commit tournies to the concept now that Chess World has buried it.


Everything seems a bit flimsy with this bloke Cordover. Wasn't some major event at Mt Buller cancelled before?

Now tell me, what was Cordover supposed to have delivered to the ACF insofar as the GP system was concerned? Did the ACF sign a contract or anything? I demand to know these details because they affect my decision to play in Mt Buller. I only want to deal with trustworthy agreements and promises.

AR

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:32 AM
arosar posted:

jase wrote:

David Cordover entered into an agreement and has not upheld his end of the deal. If I were a State Association I'd be quite reluctant to commit tournies to the concept now that Chess World has buried it.


Everything seems a bit flimsy with this bloke Cordover. Wasn't some major event at Mt Buller cancelled before?

Now tell me, what was Cordover supposed to have delivered to the ACF insofar as the GP system was concerned? Did the ACF sign a contract or anything? I demand to know these details because they affect my decision to play in Mt Buller. I only want to deal with trustworthy agreements and promises.

AR

bill replied:

Remember after Norm stopped doing the GP there was no GP co-ordinator for a while.
I think all Cordover offered was to collate the results.
No agreement was signed just like no agreement was signed with previous GP co-ordinators.

I think it is fair to say that Cordovers efforts with regards to the GP have been abysmal.

As for Mt Buller, the ACF awarded the tournament to Chess Victoria, not directly to Cordover.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:35 AM
bob posted:

jase wrote:

I put a lot of work into resurrecting the Grand prix a few years ago.

I'm appalled by it's neglect over the last 12 months.


Jason
I totally agree - let's fix this.
I have sent representation to the ACF (both directly to George and via NSWCA)

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:36 AM
jase posted:

Bob,

I think the chess community has now lost faith in the Grand Prix. Instead of building momentum and creating a greater sense of community, chess players have lost interest due to the lack of results. Organisers can't see how it builds their numbers, when the GP seems to exist in name and advertising only.

In the longer term, the Grand Prix is only viable with a sponsor. Otherwise it's just a reallocation of tournament funds. Graeme Gardiner and I had the idea to build it up to a 50 tournament nation-wide series, with lots of press releases from individual organisers as well as from the ACF, and aim to attract sponsorship. This I did when I took it from 7 tournaments to about 40 some 3 years ago.

If I were organising a tournament this year I wouldn't commit $100-$350 to the Grand Prix. In light of the Grand Prix management over the part year, I could not in good faith sell it to tournament organisers again.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 01:39 AM
i have taken the small liberty of transfering the posts from the grand prix thread in tournament news and results, in a hope to make things easier for everyone . This means we no longer have to play simuls

chesslover
26-01-2004, 09:55 AM
Supreme Leader why cannot you understand this concept?

a person who wins the grand prix circuit - like the person who wins the F1 circuit, V8 circuit, tennis's ATP circuit, Golf's circuit - is the best player for that year in Australia. He/she may not be the best player in the country, but in terms of the grand prix circuit they are.
You have that all wrong.
He is not the best player. He is simply the GP winner.


It is just like Schumacher is the best F1 driver (a record 6 titles, beating fangio's 5), but if Webber beats him this year, then for 2004 Webber is the F1 Champ - even though Schumacher is the best driver
Finally you said something right.
Webber would be the F1 Champ. He would not necessarily be the best driver. Hence he is not number 1.


I strongly suggest that you are wrong

The winner of the F1 circuit, is the number 1 driver for that year - and gets to wear the number 1 plate for the next F1 grand prix year. This is similar to the V8 circuit, where the person who ins the grand prix (ie accumulates the most points in the grand prix circuit) is crowned the nymber 1 driver for that year, and then gets the number 1 plate for the next year

The winner of the grand prix circuit, is not simply the winner fo the grand prix circuit - he is acknowledged as the best driver for that year. Now as you pointed out, being the best driver for that year by winning the grand prix, does not equate to being the best driver - but nonetheless the winner of the grand prix circuit is recognised as the champion driver for that year

That is what should happen to chess as well, so that we have the same excitement and interest in our chess grand prix - the winner of the circuit becomes the number 1 player of the year in Australian chess akin to F1, V8, tennis etc. And unlike F1 we mere mortals will get to particpate in the australian chess grand prix circuit

chesslover
26-01-2004, 10:06 AM
The Grand Prix was dead about 4 years ago. The number of tournaments were in single figures. It was something I believed in, to promote chess, to appeal to sponsors, and to mesh a quite disparate chess community.

Seemed like a a good idea at the time. I tweaked the format - basically to simplify it. This idea of "super" GP tournaments was achieved by giving them the highest category status. However I also narrowed the categories to ensure that achievement in the smaller tournaments would be significant - this is important for the smaller states to be involved, to contribute.

Okay, this may sound very optimistic, or naive, but...my idea was to put all the good ideas in place, that's what I can do, and then others would have to step in and maintain the momentum and goodwill, and ultimately, net a small but long-term sponsor [like $5-10k a year].


1. The ideas you stated for reviving the gardn prix, still are very good ideas to continue with the grand prix. Well done and thanks on behalf of teh chess community for this. :)

2. The grand prix should integrate and mesh all chess tournaments around Australia, to create the national chess circuit, much like the F1 grand prix circuit - with the points gained being used to determine the ranking of Australian chess players, just like in tennis and golf.

I believe that this will lead to more interest and promotion of australian chess, and ensure the marketability and attraction of the grand prix to potential sponsors

3. Whilst having 3 grand prix categories is good in that it narrows the points gap, and gives smaller states an opportunity, I believe that it dilutes the "status" and importance of the big traditional weekenders, like the Doberl and Ballarat. As it was the Australia Day NSW weekender is a cat 3 event, equal in points and value to the long held Doberl and Ballarat.

Maybe as mooted in the old ACF board, borrowing the "grand slam", concept from Tennis and Golf, and having a cat 4 concept, with 4 annual chess events being in this category - Doberl, Ballarat, Gold Coast and Aust Open/ Aust Champs

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 10:24 AM
That is what should happen to chess as well, so that we have the same excitement and interest in our chess grand prix - the winner of the circuit becomes the number 1 player of the year in Australian chess akin to F1, V8, tennis etc. And unlike F1 we mere mortals will get to particpate in the australian chess grand prix circuit

CL,''Your idea is not without some merit. However, it is not applicable with the surrent state of chess professionism in this country.

To support the idea of a GP of this type you would need

* an audience of interested and dedicated fans

From this you would build sponsorships, basically two types

* Event sponsorships to make the events attractive to top players (good facilities, long time limits)
* Individual sponsorships to enable players to become full time professionals

Once you had this then there would be some validity in calling the GP winner the best player of the year. Until then it just the player who has the most free time, disposable income and plays well in the weekend environment of shortish time controls and multiple games per day over 2-4 successive days in crowded and noisy venues.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 10:54 AM
Supreme Leader why cannot you understand this concept?

a person who wins the grand prix circuit - like the person who wins the F1 circuit, V8 circuit, tennis's ATP circuit, Golf's circuit - is the best player for that year in Australia. He/she may not be the best player in the country, but in terms of the grand prix circuit they are.
You have that all wrong.
He is not the best player. He is simply the GP winner.


It is just like Schumacher is the best F1 driver (a record 6 titles, beating fangio's 5), but if Webber beats him this year, then for 2004 Webber is the F1 Champ - even though Schumacher is the best driver
Finally you said something right.
Webber would be the F1 Champ. He would not necessarily be the best driver. Hence he is not number 1.


I strongly suggest that you are wrong

The winner of the F1 circuit, is the number 1 driver for that year - and gets to wear the number 1 plate for the next F1 grand prix year. This is similar to the V8 circuit, where the person who ins the grand prix (ie accumulates the most points in the grand prix circuit) is crowned the nymber 1 driver for that year, and then gets the number 1 plate for the next year

The winner of the grand prix circuit, is not simply the winner fo the grand prix circuit - he is acknowledged as the best driver for that year. Now as you pointed out, being the best driver for that year by winning the grand prix, does not equate to being the best driver - but nonetheless the winner of the grand prix circuit is recognised as the champion driver for that year

That is what should happen to chess as well, so that we have the same excitement and interest in our chess grand prix - the winner of the circuit becomes the number 1 player of the year in Australian chess akin to F1, V8, tennis etc. And unlike F1 we mere mortals will get to particpate in the australian chess grand prix circuit
That is complete rubbish.
Ian Rogers is clearly the number 1 Australian player.
Irrespective of who wins the GP, Ian is still be the number 1 player.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 10:55 AM
CL,''Your idea is not without some merit. However, it is not applicable with the surrent state of chess professionism in this country.

To support the idea of a GP of this type you would need

* an audience of interested and dedicated fans

From this you would build sponsorships, basically two types

* Event sponsorships to make the events attractive to top players (good facilities, long time limits)
* Individual sponsorships to enable players to become full time professionals

Once you had this then there would be some validity in calling the GP winner the best player of the year. Until then it just the player who has the most free time, disposable income and plays well in the weekend environment of shortish time controls and multiple games per day over 2-4 successive days in crowded and noisy venues.
Exactly.

ursogr8
26-01-2004, 11:02 AM
I think that teh grand slam concept - of having 4 super tournaments, like golf/ tennis - is a very good idea, and will ensure that Doberl, Box Hill, Gold Coast are all weekenders that maintain the prestige and importance and status that they have.

hi CL

Box Hill has only run two rated week-ender in the past 20 years to my knowledge. So you are perhaps wide of the mark on this data-point. You probably meant Ballarat.

We do however intend to run the VIC OPEN this year; details will be posted on a dedicated thread. Web-site has been constructed.

starter

chesslover
26-01-2004, 11:08 AM
The winner of the F1 grand prix circuit, is not simply the winner fo the grand prix circuit - he is acknowledged as the best driver for that year. Now as you pointed out, being the best driver for that year by winning the grand prix, does not equate to being the best driver - but nonetheless the winner of the grand prix circuit is recognised as the champion driver for that year

That is what should happen to chess as well, so that we have the same excitement and interest in our chess grand prix - the winner of the circuit becomes the number 1 player of the year in Australian chess akin to F1, V8, tennis etc. And unlike F1 we mere mortals will get to particpate in the australian chess grand prix circuit
That is complete rubbish.
Ian Rogers is clearly the number 1 Australian player.
Irrespective of who wins the GP, Ian is still be the number 1 player.

I have contacted the F1 authorities to not bother with the F1 races this year, as irrespecive of who wins the GP, Schumacher will be the number 1 player, and it will just be a waste of time

I also contacted the cricket board to not hold the triseries, as irrespective of whon wins, Australia is number 1...

I am also going to call the ATP to cancel their tennis circuit, and golf to cancel their circuit, as irrecpective of who wins the circuit, Tiger Woods will still be the number 1 player, and it will be a waste of time and effort to have their grand prix circuit

Are you happy now?

BTW that was all sarcasm, and I did not really contact any of these organisations. But if taken to a logical end, that is what will happen

Ian Rout
26-01-2004, 11:26 AM
I also contacted the cricket board to not hold the triseries, as irrespective of who wins, Australia is number 1...

Although this is stupid because the series is a one-off competition for its own sake and not designed to rank teams, cricket gives us a useful analogy. A while back the ICC's system managed to identify South Africa as the number 1 Test team ahead of Australia. The effect was not to lead everybody to congratulate SA but to draw attention to the fact that there was clearly a flaw in the system.

I don't recall ICC being moved to be sarcastic about people suggesting that SA were not the top team.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:41 AM
The winner of the F1 grand prix circuit, is not simply the winner fo the grand prix circuit - he is acknowledged as the best driver for that year. Now as you pointed out, being the best driver for that year by winning the grand prix, does not equate to being the best driver - but nonetheless the winner of the grand prix circuit is recognised as the champion driver for that year

That is what should happen to chess as well, so that we have the same excitement and interest in our chess grand prix - the winner of the circuit becomes the number 1 player of the year in Australian chess akin to F1, V8, tennis etc. And unlike F1 we mere mortals will get to particpate in the australian chess grand prix circuit
That is complete rubbish.
Ian Rogers is clearly the number 1 Australian player.
Irrespective of who wins the GP, Ian is still be the number 1 player.

I have contacted the F1 authorities to not bother with the F1 races this year, as irrespecive of who wins the GP, Schumacher will be the number 1 player, and it will just be a waste of time

I also contacted the cricket board to not hold the triseries, as irrespective of whon wins, Australia is number 1...

I am also going to call the ATP to cancel their tennis circuit, and golf to cancel their circuit, as irrecpective of who wins the circuit, Tiger Woods will still be the number 1 player, and it will be a waste of time and effort to have their grand prix circuit

Are you happy now?

BTW that was all sarcasm, and I did not really contact any of these organisations. But if taken to a logical end, that is what will happen
Even for sarcasm that is a complete load of crap.
All their GP's do is determine who is their GP winner. Not who is the best.

Alsow hat you fail to realise is that you cannot compare the F1 GP to a chess GP.

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 12:14 PM
CL,''Your idea is not without some merit. However, it is not applicable with the surrent state of chess professionism in this country.

To support the idea of a GP of this type you would need

* an audience of interested and dedicated fans

From this you would build sponsorships, basically two types

* Event sponsorships to make the events attractive to top players (good facilities, long time limits)
* Individual sponsorships to enable players to become full time professionals

Once you had this then there would be some validity in calling the GP winner the best player of the year. Until then it just the player who has the most free time, disposable income and plays well in the weekend environment of shortish time controls and multiple games per day over 2-4 successive days in crowded and noisy venues.
Exactly.

Any ideas for point 1?

Ian Rout
26-01-2004, 12:15 PM
One place where comparions with the F1 GP, the ATP rankings and the golf prize list break down is that those are competitions among the best of the best, whereas a domestic series is a competition among those available.

Soccer is a sport in which, like chess, players have to go overseas to make a mark. If we were to choose the best Australian soccer player we would not look to something like the winner of the most player-of-the-match awards in the national league, we would come up with a name like Harry Kewell. We might not know exactly how to determine the best, but we would certain know what wouldn't work.

Even in sports like cricket where the domestic competition is of a high standard we tend to rate players on their performance at international level; it's only in a sport like Australian Rules we wouldn't really factor it in.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 12:51 PM
i think one of the goals of the grand prix should be to enable the best players in the country to compete against each other more often :)

Paul S
26-01-2004, 02:19 PM
This was an interesting thread for a while. Then Bill and CL got going.

I've posted on this topic in the 'tournaments' section so I will try to be brief here.

The Grand Prix was dead about 4 years ago. The number of tournaments were in single figures. It was something I believed in, to promote chess, to appeal to sponsors, and to mesh a quite disparate chess community.

Seemed like a a good idea at the time. I tweaked the format - basically to simplify it. This idea of "super" GP tournaments was achieved by giving them the highest category status. However I also narrowed the categories to ensure that achievement in the smaller tournaments would be significant - this is important for the smaller states to be involved, to contribute.

I prepared a media kit for every tournament [I think I got 40 tournaments on board]. They got a press release, scoresheets, a g1 page blurb on steps to boost media coverage of their event, some A# glossy posters, and probably other stuff that I can't think of right now because I just got home from being in a chess hall for 28 hours in one weekend.

Okay, this may sound very optimistic, or naive, but...my idea was to put all the good ideas in place, that's what I can do, and then others would have to step in and maintain the momentum and goodwill, and ultimately, net a small but long-term sponsor [like $5-10k a year].

I made it clear from the beginning that I would do all the creative stuff to revive the Grand Prix, but that I was unwilling to keep the scores, and maintain the website. The ACF [ie Graeme] got Helen Thompson, from Qld, as the administrator. She didn't see out the year. Norm took over from her, seemed to do a good job, until passing the reins to David Cordover.

David is a good bloke, at heart; buggered if I know what's happened, but it's all gone pear-shaped.

Dear Jason

This is a very good post. If there are going to be BB prizes for the best post of 2004, then I reckon this is the best one so far this year!

I have a LOT of empathy for you on this issue (and for Norm Braybrooke and others who have worked very hard to make a go of the Grand Prix). I have often felt much the same way about the Canterbury Leagues chess club - viz if I were to "get run over by a bus tomorrow" then all my efforts over the last 5 years or so of trying to make a go of the Canterbury Leagues chess club (I have probably done about 80% of the organising work there over the last 5 years- viz I have effectively been the treasurser/tournament organiser/secretary etc etc) would likely come to nothing. Without wishing to sound like I am an "indispensible man" (IMHO NOBODY is indispensible!), I think it is likely that if I were to leave Canterbury "tomorrow" (I have often thought of quitting over the last year) then the Canterbury club may very well fold.

Jason, I think I can understand how you are probably feeling about the GP, in that all of your efforts may have been in vain. When this sort of thing happens in chess it is very bad for the game, as good orgainsers (like Jason!), can easily (and understandably!) be discouraged from wanting to organise things in the future.

Despite what some people may have interpreted form my earlier post, I am NOT "against" the Grand Prix as such. I guess my views (as to whether or not the GP should exist) are probably much like Amiel's (Arosar), in that I am not too fussed if there is a Grand Prix or not. I guess I could say that when I first became aware of the GP (in April/May 2002) I thought "well OK its probably six of one and half a dozen of the other as to what is better - to have a GP or to have cheaper tournament entry fees (or better tournament prizemoney), but if people like Norm Braybrooke are prepared to do the large amount of work to organise (and update on a regular basis the GP scores), then I am happy for there to be a GP". I also think that the basic concept is OK, viz some sort of reward for the regular tournament chess players (although as Jason intimates, the GP should ideally be financed from outside sponsorship - viz ideally not to have to increase entry fees/reduce prizemoney from existing tournaments to pay for GP fees as is the case at present).

At the same time, I object to GP fees being paid when the GP is being run as poorly as it has been since 13/2/03. It is disgraceful that the only 2 times (since 13/2/03) that GP scores have been made public appear to have been as a result of BB posts I made on the old BB (effectively asking "where are the results"). It is also disgraceful that the results for 2003 are not yet publicly available. At present, it is better value for chess for there to be no GP fees and instead the money that is spent on GP fees be used instead to reduce tournament entry fees (or increase tournament prizemoney).

As mentioned earlier, I am indifferent as to whether or not there is a GP, so I would make an unsuitable GP co-ordinator. However, others in this thread appear to be very keen on the idea of a GP. Some people who are keen on the concept of the GP (eg George Howard, Paul Broekhuyse, Kevin Bonham, Bill Gletsos etc etc) already have more than enough to do in chess and so cannot be expected to take on the role of GP co-ordinator. So, I would like to issue a challenge - how about one of YOU BB posters/viewers (who are KEEN on the idea and concept of the GP) become the GP co-ordinator for 2004? How about you, Mr Chesslover? You don't appear to contribute anything towards organising anything in chess at present (and seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands - you make a lot of posts on this BB), so how about YOU be GP Co-ordinator for 2004 (instead of smugly offering advice all the time as to how other people should be doing things in Australian Chess)?

If the 2004 GP is to be run as poorly as the 2003 GP, then it should be scrapped. However, if the 2004 GP is to be run as well as the 2002 GP, then I would have no objections to there being a 2004 GP.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 03:25 PM
I have sent Paul B an email regarding what is required for this position. It is just enquiry stage atm, but i am interested.

chesslover
26-01-2004, 05:24 PM
I also contacted the cricket board to not hold the triseries, as irrespective of who wins, Australia is number 1...

Although this is stupid because the series is a one-off competition for its own sake and not designed to rank teams, cricket gives us a useful analogy. A while back the ICC's system managed to identify South Africa as the number 1 Test team ahead of Australia. The effect was not to lead everybody to congratulate SA but to draw attention to the fact that there was clearly a flaw in the system.

I don't recall ICC being moved to be sarcastic about people suggesting that SA were not the top team.

ICC has a test and one day championship, based on every country playing each other over a period of time. To qualify for a tets series a country must play 2 tests, which is why we play the minimum 2 match with Zimbabwe and Bangaladesh.

Currently based on the matches played, and the points allocated, we are number 1 in test and ODI, and South Africa is number 2 in Test and ODI

chesslover
26-01-2004, 05:30 PM
That is complete rubbish.
Ian Rogers is clearly the number 1 Australian player.
Irrespective of who wins the GP, Ian is still be the number 1 player.

Even for sarcasm that is a complete load of crap.
All their GP's do is determine who is their GP winner. Not who is the best.

Alsow hat you fail to realise is that you cannot compare the F1 GP to a chess GP.




Determining the number 1 player from the grand prix circuit, based on points accumulated from grand prix tournaments, IS akin to the F1 grand prix circuit. Only difference is that the "comman man/woman" can enter these grand prix events, unlike F1 which is closed off to all but the very elite

Also, how would you determine who the number 1 player every year in australian chess is?

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 08:42 PM
Simple its the highest rated active player.

Garvinator
26-01-2004, 11:02 PM
I have sent Paul B an email regarding what is required for this position. It is just enquiry stage atm, but i am interested.
I sent paul b an email six hours ago and posted on here too and im yet to get even a sniff of an enquiry of interest in my services

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:04 PM
I am aware that someone else had already offered their services to the ACF with regards the GP co-ordinator prior to your offer.

Rincewind
26-01-2004, 11:14 PM
Simple its the highest rated active player.

How about the player with the highest probable minumum rating?

chesslover
27-01-2004, 09:03 PM
I am aware that someone else had already offered their services to the ACF with regards the GP co-ordinator prior to your offer.

maybe you should ask gray to appeal the slection of the gp coordinator if he misses out?? :p :D

Garvinator
27-01-2004, 10:45 PM
dont worry cl, that thought had crossed my mind hehe :D :p

Bob1
28-01-2004, 07:57 AM
From the ACF Bulletin

Grand Prix Co-ordinator needed: The ACF needs a Grand Prix Co-ordinator for 2004. The person would need to send out invoices, liaise with tournament organisers and calculate results. Anyone interested should contact ACF President George Howard on 0414 841575. The ACF would be happy to hear from chess organisations that wish to run the GP and have their name attached, as did last year's co-ordinator, David Cordover's Chess World.

sounds simple enough.

ggrayggray Grand Prix has a nice ring to it !

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 09:21 AM
ggrayggray Grand Prix has a nice ring to it !

thanks bob, but i dont think my bb name would be used for the grand prix, but my real name is also GG ;) .

bill posted this previously:


I am aware that someone else had already offered their services to the ACF with regards the GP co-ordinator prior to your offer.

is this still the situation?

chesslover
28-01-2004, 07:42 PM
thanks bob, but i dont think my bb name would be used for the grand prix, but my real name is also GG ;) .

bill posted this previously:


I am aware that someone else had already offered their services to the ACF with regards the GP co-ordinator prior to your offer.

is this still the situation?

from the way it was written in the ACF bulletin, it seems that it is more advategeous for a chess business (ie parr's CDS or Jones) to run it, as they get free sponsorship in return

as for anyone who has already applied, I guess since the contact is George, he is the only one who will know...his mobile is in the contact details so maybe ringing him?

Ask and you shall recieve

ChessGuru
28-01-2004, 08:25 PM
GP has been a bit of a disaster all year. I will be the first to admit that.
When I took it over (can’t remember when, perhaps April?) I wasn’t given any form of job description, no list of prizes, no copies of rules, only a list of tournaments that had registered for the GP. I was begged to take on this GP role and was told that all I’d have to do is collate scores. At the time I said I was very busy and didn’t really want the job, but there was nobody else to do it. I didn’t request the free plug each week in the ACF bulletin, but I certainly wasn’t complaining about it.

I think that it could be a big pull for someone’s website to have the GP scores up-to-date and online (perhaps another commercial enterprise wants it this year?) but they have to be prepared to chase the tournaments to get the results!

Of the 36 tournaments on the GP this year I am still waiting for results from 10 of them to be submitted!!! I have emailed the ACF suggesting that if the results aren’t submitted to me then I will declare the results for 2003 final and their tournaments miss out.

Jason, I know you got the whole thing going again a couple of years ago and that was fantastic…I just wish that I had seen some of the publicity packs you were sending then. As I said earlier I have been given the barest details possible in terms of how to run this and told the ACF that I’d do the minimum possible to get the results collated … Only once have I been approached for the scores and I emailed the results I had to PaulB to put on the Bulletin. If you’d like I can make public the scores prior to the final 10 tournaments results being collated? Here or on the ACF Bulletin?

I too believe this GP can be very good for Australia Chess. So much so that I sponsored Ballarat’s tournament last year and this year to pay their GP fees (they wouldn’t have been part of the GP otherwise) and organised 3 weekenders in Vic, all of which were GP tournaments!

I do my best for Chess all the time and apologise if the GP this year was not as public as it should have been…but I made it clear at the start that it wasn’t my job to do that. I was a simple clerk who would collate scores. I have so much on my plate for this year (Mt Buller) that I have decided that I won’t even be able to commit to keeping the scores so have requested that someone else take the job.

I think that a clever person could probably write a program to automatically update GP scores on a website somewhere and nobody would have to go through the tedium of updating manually…. Someone?

george
30-01-2004, 12:01 PM
HI ALL,

The Grand Prix needs to be administered in its current form at the moment. We need to see how it is received when there is more frequent reporting etc.

Please check the next ACF Bulletin on who is going to be the new Grand Prix Co-ordinator.

In the next 2 months or certainly at the ACF Council Workshop in early April the concept of how to restructure the Grand Prix will certainly be discussed.

Perhaps what we have now with a relaunch and more energy is what is required - perhaps something else - ideas have come forth very very good ones that WILL be considered and acted on if the ACF Council so wishes.

Regards
George Howard

Kerry Stead
30-01-2004, 12:28 PM
David,
I can imagine that the GP Co-ordinators job would be a largely thankless job (as with many 'scoring' type positions - I can only feel for Margaret Cuckson and her helpers who look after the Primary Schools competition in NSW with 1200+ teams), and its not as easy as it may sound.
As far as I know (I haven't checked lately), but there were still rules up on Norm Braybrooke's Redcliffe Chess Club webpage (along with the 2002 results, etc).
I wouldn't have thought that chasing results would be such a problem, but it obviously is. Perhaps you could try getting in touch with Bill Gletsos or Graeme Saint to get the Swiss Perfect files for the GP events. I imagine they would have all been submitted for rating (there would be an even bigger outcry if, for example, the Doeberl Cup had not been rated). Perhaps you could use those to find out the missing results.
Might I suggest posting provisional results here. In the past there have been problems with scoring, and posting full points scores for all events here would allow the BB regulars to do a check and see if there are any anomalies in the results, and then have the results (subject to a final scrutinise from ACF email bulletin readers) published in the ACF Bulletin, with cheques sent out say a fortnight later.
That was its all off your hands quickly, problems get solved, and the new GP co-ordinator can get things up and running for 2004!

ChessGuru
30-01-2004, 05:54 PM
Informal Progress Scores for ACF GP - to be audited and checked by the ACF prior to prizes being awarded (and also more scores need to be added).
OPEN
1 Rogers, Ian NSW 2581 97.5
2 Solomon, Stephen Qld 2344 64.46
3 Castor, David NSW 1788 55.5
4 Xie, George 2200 53.5
5 Lane, Gary W NSW 2400 36.5
6 Stead, Kerry NSW 1981 31
7 Johansen, Darrel Vic 2408 31
8 Tan, Justin NSW 2108 29.2
9 Rej, Tomek NSW 2067 24.57
10 Cowley, Bob SA 2088 21

U2000
1 Castor, David NSW 1788 65
2 Pengelley, Justin Qld 1712 35
3 Lovejoy, David Qld 1778 33.5
4 Edwards, Jacob A Qld 1851 32
5 Zvedeniouk, Ilya NSW 1875 29.5
6 Stead, Kerry NSW 1981 27.67
7 Rout, Ian ACT 1923 27.2
8 Bonham, Kevin Tas 1952 24.6
9 Van Renen, Mike NSW 1932 21.6
10 Murray, Bruce Nsw 1828 20.6

U1600
1 Hvistendahl, Robert Qld 1505 41.88
2 Jurd, Sebastion NSW 1496 37.13
3 Ly, Moulthun Qld 1451 35.83
4 Brown, Phillip NSW 1537 33
5 Ivkovic, Milutin Tas 1440 30
6 Huynh, Arthur NSW 1564 29.5
7 Keuning, Anthony NSW 1517 28.33
8 Losh, Gary NSW 1395 26.5
9 Taylor, Stephen Vic 1350 24.4
10 Song, Angela NSW 1394 23.75

JUNIOR
1 Xie, George 2200 59.25
2 Rej, Tomek NSW 2067 56.83
3 Barnard, Casey Qld 1669 46.9
4 Wongwichit, Phachara Qld 1782 40.9
5 Yu, Ronald NSW 1720 36
6 Susilodinata, Andrean 2200 36

FEMALE
1 Huddleston, Heather NSW 1522 79
2 Soltysik, Adelaide NSW 1121 45.5
3 Song, Angela 1437 41
4 Martin, Janice 36
5 Russell, Luthien Qld 770 36

UNRATED
1 Boardman, Jeffery NSW 32
2 Kirshnei, Pedro NSW 32
3 Mitra, Druva SA 21

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2004, 06:22 PM
For those that are interested, I have sent David the necessary SP files he needs to complete the GP scoring.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:30 PM
Dear Jeo

this poll also got stuffed in the movement to the new BB version

The third option should have been "No - scrap the grandprix" not "rugby League".....

can you pls when you get the chance change the third option using your super admin powers?

:)

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 02:25 AM
ChessGuru, I've just sent you a PM re apparent errors in some of the Tasmanian scores.

Kerry Stead
04-02-2004, 10:51 AM
Is it possible to get the full results put up somewhere on the web, or circulated via email? By that I mean something akin to an spreadsheet which indicates who got the GP points in each division in each tournament. I know Norm Braybrooke did something like this when he did the GP a few years ago, and it was very easy to follow and made checking of calculations a breeze.

Bob1
18-02-2004, 07:54 PM
Sorry for the delay - this is work in (slow) progress
Comments apreciated (it's your GP)
- the new web page will start with the info following (note: in a better format)



2004 GRAND PRIX

updated 18/02/2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GP 2003 winners list Tournament List Tournament Results
Click for each Class progress scores

Open Under2000 Under1600 Junior Women Unrated


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Scoring Points

Each player’s best 5 scores, by category, are accumulated to determine the prize winners, in the 2002 Grand Prix. The closer allocation of points between categories gives more significance to smaller events, encouraging broader participation.
Ratings Used

Ratings for Grand Prix points will be as shown in the December 2003 ACF master list .Players who do not appear on the December 2003 ACF Master List but appear on the January 2004 FIDE Rating List as rated 2000 and over are only eligible for open prizes (and junior and womens prizes if eligible), other players on the FIDE list are only eligible for U2000 prizes . Players who appear on neither list are only eligible for unrated or open prizes (and junior and womens prizes if eligible).
Points

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
1st 12 16 20
2nd 9 12 15
3rd 6 9 12
4th 4 6 9
5th 3 4 6




Points-Allocation

When tournaments are played in divisions matching GP divisions (Open : U2000 : U1600 ) , points will be awarded to those divisions . Junior : Women : Unrated points being awarded starting with the Open division and cascading down through U2000 then U1600 until 1st. to 5th. Points have been allocated.

In “ Open” tournaments, GP points will be allocated from the 1st. Down and players can gain points in more than one division provided they meet the division qualifications.

Tournament Classes

Tournaments are graded into classes, which are determined by total prize money on offer:

Value of Trophies , or other non cash prizes are excluded when calculating "Total Prize Money"

In practice,this formula works out as follows:

Class 1: Total prize money less than $1,500
Class 2: Total prize money $1,500 – $2,499
Class 3: Total prize money $2,500 or more
FEES

Tournament Organisers are Required to pay fees:

Class 1 up-front $50 plus $2 per player
Class2 up-front $100 plus $2 per player
Class3 up-front $150 Plus $2 per player
Events held in Tasmania : South Australia :Western Australia northern Territory and outside other State capitals are entitled to a $50 reduction in up-front fee.
A MAXIMUM of $500 shall apply to any one tournament
Prizes

(subject to budget approval)

Place Open U/2000 U/1600 Junior
1st 875 525 525 350
2nd 525 350 350 200
3rd 350 200 200 150
4th 200 150 150
5th 150
Women: 350 Unrated: 200 State prizes: 200
Estimated total prize pool: $6,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A player may win one prize only. Juniors must be under 18 years of age as at 1st January 2003. State prizes are awarded to players in each state where there are no prize winners.

The 2004 Grand Prix is being co-ordinated by Robert Keast “. Who can be contacted at e-mail:robert.keast@didata.com.au, snail mail:c/- NSWCA PO Box 2418 Sydney 2001
or telephone:02-8249-5003Mobile:0417-497-258

The ACF 2004 Grand Prix – coming to a tournament near you.

Garvinator
19-02-2004, 01:18 AM
I see we have quite a few tournaments that are category 3. I had a look on the fide website but i could not find what requirements are there to make category 4?

Can someone tell me what those requirements are?

Depending on what the requirements are, maybe this might be a more achievable first step towards greater ambitions :eek: :hmm:

Kerry Stead
19-02-2004, 02:11 AM
I see we have quite a few tournaments that are category 3. I had a look on the fide website but i could not find what requirements are there to make category 4?

Can someone tell me what those requirements are?

Depending on what the requirements are, maybe this might be a more achievable first step towards greater ambitions :eek: :hmm:

You seem to have made the incorrect leap that Australian Grand Prix tournament categories are equivalent to FIDE tournament categories. This is entirely wrong (W-R-O-N-G for chesslover's benefit). There is no such thing as a category 4 GP event (in years gone by when the categories were 1-5 there were, but that system has been gone for over 5 years now).
The Australian GP is in no way connected with FIDE.
The Australian GP system is based on weekend events around the country, with higher category tournaments having higher prizemoney on offer, and therefore, in theory at least, attracting stronger players, which in turn makes a good performance at such a tournament worthy of more GP points.
As Bob Keast has explained, the GP is based on a player's best 5 results during the year.

FIDE's categories, however relate to the Average rating of a round robin tournament (I'm pretty sure it only relates to round robins, but I could be wrong), which is then used to determine requirements for title norms (providing the required number of titled players, federations represented, etc is fulfilled). Basically the higher the category, the higher the average rating of the field. For example, Linares 2004 is a category 20 tournament, with an average rating of 2731 - ie: pretty damn strong!

Garvinator
19-02-2004, 11:36 AM
You seem to have made the incorrect leap that Australian Grand Prix tournament categories are equivalent to FIDE tournament categories. This is entirely wrong (W-R-O-N-G for chesslover's benefit). There is no such thing as a category 4 GP event (in years gone by when the categories were 1-5 there were, but that system has been gone for over 5 years now).
The Australian GP is in no way connected with FIDE.
The Australian GP system is based on weekend events around the country, with higher category tournaments having higher prizemoney on offer, and therefore, in theory at least, attracting stronger players, which in turn makes a good performance at such a tournament worthy of more GP points.
As Bob Keast has explained, the GP is based on a player's best 5 results during the year.

FIDE's categories, however relate to the Average rating of a round robin tournament (I'm pretty sure it only relates to round robins, but I could be wrong), which is then used to determine requirements for title norms (providing the required number of titled players, federations represented, etc is fulfilled). Basically the higher the category, the higher the average rating of the field. For example, Linares 2004 is a category 20 tournament, with an average rating of 2731 - ie: pretty damn strong!

ok yes slightly incorrect thought, well anyways ill change tack then, what would it take for there to be a category 4 tournament that was declared so by the acf council?