PDA

View Full Version : NSWJCL event, summer tournament



bunta
23-12-2005, 08:36 AM
is the summer three day tournament going to be ACF rated? just wondering because it is a longer time limit

Trent Parker
23-12-2005, 11:44 PM
why would they incur the expense when they have their own ratings system. Ok so they might do state junior champs (but i don't think so....)

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 02:49 AM
why would they incur the expense when they have their own ratings system. Ok so they might do state junior champs (but i don't think so....)

I'd love to see this reasoning applied to any tournament. Why, we wouldn't need ratings at all then and poor Bill would have nothing to do!

Case in point, our club has our own rating system, so we don't submit anything for rating because as you say, why would we incur necessary expense?

Makes you think...

ElevatorEscapee
24-12-2005, 03:31 AM
Our club has it's own rating system too... mainly because we can't afford Chess Victoria's ridiculous $5 per player / per tournament rating fee.

I am sure that club members would be happy to pay a nominal rating fee for our club championship (for instance), but Chess Victoria have priced themselves well out of the market.

If you have a dozen players playing in a couple of "rated" events per year, then 12 x 2 x $5 = $120 just to change a few numbers against a few players names in the rating list.... that's the equivalent of an extra digital clock and a set and board per year!

Which will benefit an entire club more? A clock, set and board (which will allow an extra two members to compete in any event), or a few numbers changed against a few members names on the rating list?

The answer is pretty obvious for me... the equipment has priority always as it benefits all club members, not just those who may have ratings.

Personally, I would prefer to see two more players show up regularly to the local club, make use of the equipment, etc... than to see my rating go up by, say, 100 points.

Given that the CV ratings officers volunteer their services and receive no financial remuneration for their efforts, I fail to see why the charge for rating chess tournaments in Victoria is so ludicrously high.

As a chess club treasurer, I would rather money not be spent to increase the coffers of state associations and tournaments not be externally rated if the money saved thereby can be genuinely used to benefit a club or chess community.

Just my two penneth worth.

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 03:43 AM
Our club has it's own rating system too... mainly because we can't afford Chess Victoria's ridiculous $5 per player / per tournament rating fee.

CAQ too employ a $5 per player fee, hence we are in a congruous situation.

The cash is better spent on stuff like prizes for winners and pizza nights!

ursogr8
24-12-2005, 01:41 PM
Our club has it's own rating system too... mainly because we can't afford Chess Victoria's ridiculous $5 per player / per tournament rating fee.

I am sure that club members would be happy to pay a nominal rating fee for our club championship (for instance), but Chess Victoria have priced themselves well out of the market.

If you have a dozen players playing in a couple of "rated" events per year, then 12 x 2 x $5 = $120 just to change a few numbers against a few players names in the rating list.... that's the equivalent of an extra digital clock and a set and board per year!

Which will benefit an entire club more? A clock, set and board (which will allow an extra two members to compete in any event), or a few numbers changed against a few members names on the rating list?

The answer is pretty obvious for me... the equipment has priority always as it benefits all club members, not just those who may have ratings.

Personally, I would prefer to see two more players show up regularly to the local club, make use of the equipment, etc... than to see my rating go up by, say, 100 points.

Given that the CV ratings officers volunteer their services and receive no financial remuneration for their efforts, I fail to see why the charge for rating chess tournaments in Victoria is so ludicrously high.

As a chess club treasurer, I would rather money not be spent to increase the coffers of state associations and tournaments not be externally rated if the money saved thereby can be genuinely used to benefit a club or chess community.

Just my two penneth worth.


A most interesting post of yours EE and not much that one would disagree with. (I will get to that minor point in a minute).

First, if you have a local volunteer who can do the calculations, then that sounds like a logical decision to use the zero-cost Bendigo ratings, instead of the $5_per_tourney CV ratings.

Second, if you have no Bendigo players (or very few) who want to play as ACF_rated in events such as AUS Open, Begonia, VIC Open, Winter Interclub, then even more reason to stick with Bendigo_ratings.

Third, I am not sure why you relate the cost of producing the ratings (which is near zero, but not zero as we re-imburse the RO's ISP charges), to the sell-price of the service. I can't think of any other product in the entire retail community where selling price is near cost-of-production. In fact, fg7 often calls the ratings fee a 'tax on Clubs'.

Fourth, the ratings fees are not lost to the chess-community as they are managed and re-distributed by the CV Executive and the CV AGM for the perceived benefit of us all.

regards
starter

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 02:02 PM
CAQ too employ a $5 per player fee, hence we are in a congruous situation.

The cash is better spent on stuff like prizes for winners and pizza nights!
you already can suspect my stance on this matter, that the uq chess club would have more players if run more like a normal chess club instead of the ad hoc manner it is atm.

As starter says, the $5 per player is re-distributed back to the players in tournaments in many ways that usually only a state association has the ability to do ie running title events, helping to support the australian championships (in this case) etc.

CAQ is also helping support the 2006 gp by paying the early gp fee for any caq affiliated club that wants to run a 2006 gp tournament.

I do think that the $5 per player per tournament is too high, but I cant see another revenue stream that will match it at this point in time, especially for queensland chess.

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 02:04 PM
Fourth, the ratings fees are not lost to the chess-community as they are managed and re-distributed by the CV Executive and the CV AGM for the perceived benefit of us all.
except sometimes that the money collected from affiliated clubs is then given as grants or similiar to non- affiliated bodies ;)

Alan Shore
24-12-2005, 02:26 PM
you already can suspect my stance on this matter, that the uq chess club would have more players if run more like a normal chess club instead of the ad hoc manner it is atm.

Well.. yes and no. How things are run now are pretty good.. we've got your good pairings systems and club ratings which have been great. However most of us really enjoy the informal social atmosphere that university students flourish in.. I mean, what would you change exactly to make it 'run more like a normal chess club'?


CAQ is also helping support the 2006 gp by paying the early gp fee for any caq affiliated club that wants to run a 2006 gp tournament.

Well, I won't comment on that.. I am not a fan of the GP as I think it is far too biased towards NSW players, particularly with the new format.


I do think that the $5 per player per tournament is too high, but I cant see another revenue stream that will match it at this point in time, especially for queensland chess.

Well, it's your job to get in the think tank and come up with something better isn't it? ;)

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 02:36 PM
Well.. yes and no. How things are run now are pretty good.. we've got your good pairings systems and club ratings which have been great. However most of us really enjoy the informal social atmosphere that university students flourish in.. I mean, what would you change exactly to make it 'run more like a normal chess club'?

I think the year could run longer and could be run during the july holidays etc. There is no promotion outside of uq (as far as I know, i am not involved in any of that stuff).

I am going to enquire very early next year about whether the $5 per player fee applies to rapid events, not sure :hmm:.

my pairings system hey, :hmm: not so sure if swiss perfect and swiss sys et al would be too thrilled to hear that their pairing programs are now my good pairing systems :P and the ratings, well i come on the internet, go to barry cox glicko calc, input the information and then adjust the old ratings to the new information.


Well, I won't comment on that.. I am not a fan of the GP as I think it is far too biased towards NSW players, particularly with the new format.I havent looked too hard at the exact details of the gp as in its implications for each state, but my gut reaction is that I concur. That being said, caq has made a financial and supportive attempt to get more qld tournaments on to the gp calendar for 2006 to try and lessen this effect as much as we can.

Of course if the other states and territories did the same, then your analysis would be reduced further ie victoria.


Well, it's your job to get in the think tank and come up with something better isn't it? ;)
Isnt that what the new vp is for ;) :P

ursogr8
24-12-2005, 04:16 PM
except sometimes that the money collected from affiliated clubs is then given as grants or similiar to non- affiliated bodies ;)

Past tense gg''.

No such motions passed at the CV EXecutive (the first since the AGM) on Thursday 22/12/5, my first as Treasurer.


starter

Leonid Sandler
24-12-2005, 08:11 PM
Hello Mr.Starter,
Could you please inform us what was decided in Chess Victoria meeting on Dec 22nd.
Thank you

ursogr8
24-12-2005, 08:45 PM
Hello Mr.Starter,
Could you please inform us what was decided in Chess Victoria meeting on Dec 22nd.
Thank you

hi Leonid

It was my first meeting and I must say I was very impressed by the material produced beforehand so that we could discuss topics in depth but quickly. And the Secretary seemed to very adept at getting motions minuted.

The other newbies (Grant Bultmann and Gary Lycett) contributed items of real interest to me; it was a good meeting.

I think your request is related to one particular agenda item stemming from correspondence from you. The nominations to the new Junior Council had more than 10 names to be considered. The Director will be in contact with a working subset to start this new initiative.

The Croydon Chess Club was a very hospitable host for the meeting and it would be good if the Executive could meet at other chess locations over the coming year.

regards
starter