PDA

View Full Version : Overseas tournaments



Alan Shore
28-01-2006, 12:22 PM
Are these ever ACF rated, eg. Queenstown?

Rincewind
28-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Are these ever ACF rated, eg. Queenstown?

This question was (sort of) answered here http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83622&postcount=52

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2006, 12:30 PM
This question was (sort of) answered here http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83622&postcount=52And possibly here http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83625&postcount=55 ;)

Rincewind
28-01-2006, 12:38 PM
And possibly here http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83625&postcount=55 ;)

I'm just wondering is there a "not" missing from that last sentence?

Alan Shore
28-01-2006, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I was away and didn't know where to sift through where it was probabaly asked before.

So I take it, it's a no, with a perhaps? It did seem from post #55, there were a lot of Australians and FIDE rated ones.. just adds to the confusion a little.

Rincewind
28-01-2006, 01:59 PM
Bill, will you be ACF rating Queenstown?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2006, 02:07 PM
Bill, will you be ACF rating Queenstown?Ah finally someone asks the relevant question on the BB without it being encumbered with additional provisions or referring to OS events in general.

The answer is yes.

Alan Shore
28-01-2006, 02:25 PM
Ah finally someone asks the relevant question on the BB without it being encumbered with additional provisions or referring to OS events in general.

The answer is yes.

OMG! I should have known!

Given the opportunity I don't think Bill would pass the Turing Test. ;)

Garvinator
28-01-2006, 02:36 PM
Ah finally someone asks the relevant question on the BB without it being encumbered with additional provisions or referring to OS events in general.

The answer is yes.
I dont think this is fair. Why should overseas tournaments be acf rated for free, but tournaments in Australia have to pay the rating fee to be acf rated?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2006, 03:33 PM
I dont think this is fair.Whether you think it is fair or not is not only immaterial but also a very blinkered view.

Why should overseas tournaments be acf rated for free, but tournaments in Australia have to pay the rating fee to be acf rated?Because the ACF has no control over other Federations.
It is desirable to rate OS events with a significant number of Australian players.
The ACF rating of the event offers no benefit to the OS Federation, it is for the benefit of Australian players.

Rincewind
28-01-2006, 04:05 PM
OMG! I should have known!

Given the opportunity I don't think Bill would pass the Turing Test. ;)

Just remember to invoke the right of parley!

ursogr8
28-01-2006, 07:12 PM
Ah finally someone asks the relevant question on the BB without it being encumbered with additional provisions or referring to OS events in general.

The answer is yes.

Why were you less than helpful, Bill?
(http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83805&postcount=62) :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2006, 07:25 PM
Why were you less than helpful, Bill?
(http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83805&postcount=62) :rolleyes:I answered the question that you put.
You directly linked it to Amiel's question of rating only AUS V AUS games.

If you cannot frame your question properly that is hardly my problem.

I even tried giving you a hint in post #69 when I said "Look at the actual question AR asked." The subsequent discussion up to post #75 where I told you to to think outside the box still didnt get you to see the light. Instead you gave up.

Barry's question is the simple, obvious and straightforward question, not your questions with all the additional qualifications added.

As such it got the simple, straightforward answer.

Denis_Jessop
28-01-2006, 08:31 PM
I dont think this is fair. Why should overseas tournaments be acf rated for free, but tournaments in Australia have to pay the rating fee to be acf rated?

One reason is that the so-called "rating fee" is not a rating fee. It is an administration fee imposed on affiliated Associations. It is determined with regard to rated games and takes the place of the now-abolished State Association levies that were in force before the Admin fee was introduced.

DJ

Garvinator
28-01-2006, 08:57 PM
One reason is that the so-called "rating fee" is not a rating fee. It is an administration fee imposed on affiliated Associations. It is determined with regard to rated games and takes the place of the now-abolished State Association levies that were in force before the Admin fee was introduced.

DJ
i was waiting for that answer;) :cool:

ursogr8
28-01-2006, 09:07 PM
I answered the question that you put.
You directly linked it to Amiel's question of rating only AUS V AUS games.
Well, actually, Amiel and I did not place the only where you have placed it Bill; so our framing should have anticipated that you would mis-read. :rolleyes:


If you cannot frame your question properly that is hardly my problem.

But I suspect that you could have avoided the confusion that ensured by a simple informative post. So, why not?


I even tried giving you a hint in post #69 when I said "Look at the actual question AR asked." The subsequent discussion up to post #75 where I told you to to think outside the box still didnt get you to see the light. Instead you gave up.

Bill, if I want to do puzzles I will read Baz's recreational maths, or even the long DGE? thread.


Barry's question is the simple, obvious and straightforward question, not your questions with all the additional qualifications added.

As such it got the simple, straightforward answer.

And you could have given a straight forward answer under 'other' in this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83722&postcount=7)


starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2006, 12:03 AM
Well, actually, Amiel and I did not place the only where you have placed it Bill; so our framing should have anticipated that you would mis-read. :rolleyes:I mis-read nothing.
The problem is with your comprehension skills. It would seem you mis-read Amiel's post
Amiel's question made no reference to Queenstown, nor did the post he was responding to.
He said:

I think it should be possible to rate Aus v Aus games only right?
It is clear that his question relates to AUS V AUS games in OS events and does not include AUS V OS players in OS events.

But I suspect that you could have avoided the confusion that ensured by a simple informative post. So, why not?If you wished to know if Queenstown would be rated you should have asked that question like Barry did.
Your inability to ask a simople question is not my problem.
You were the only who decided to link the question of rating Queenstown to Amile's question when you said

Will you be rating Queenstown for games in the subset indicated by 'the muffled shouter'?
I answered that question.

Bill, if I want to do puzzles I will read Baz's recreational maths, or even the long DGE? thread.And if you want to ask me inane questions then I will respond how I choose.

And you could have given a straight forward answer under 'other' in this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83722&postcount=7)Your question clearly related to the AUS V AUS category of games. It did not relate to Queenstown. I gave my answer in your 'other' category because my answer did not fall under you categories a), b) or c).

I answered your questions.

If you wanted to know if I would rate Queenstown then you should have asked that question, instead of going on with all the rubbish you did.

Your failure to ask that question isnt my problem.

ursogr8
29-01-2006, 07:22 AM
I mis-read nothing.
The problem is with your comprehension skills. It would seem you mis-read Amiel's post
Amiel's question made no reference to Queenstown, nor did the post he was responding to.
He said:

It is clear that his question relates to AUS V AUS games in OS events and does not include AUS V OS players in OS events.
If you wished to know if Queenstown would be rated you should have asked that question like Barry did.
Your inability to ask a simople question is not my problem.
You were the only who decided to link the question of rating Queenstown to Amile's question when you said

In post#39 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83528&postcount=39)
pax appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#40 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83557&postcount=40)
watto appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#41 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83558&postcount=41)
Amiel is clearly referencing Queenstown.
In post#42 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=42)
Barry is referencing Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=43
post#43 jenni is referencing Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83610&postcount=44
post#44 TWM was clearly responding to the difficulty of the ACF charging Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83612&postcount=45
post#45
Amiel was still clearly referencing Queenstown Aus v Aus games.
My post referenced Amiel's #45.



<The rest of Bill's post snipped as it is based on a different interpretation of posts #39 to #45>.


starter

Alan Shore
29-01-2006, 08:31 AM
In post#39 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83528&postcount=39)
pax appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#40 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83557&postcount=40)
watto appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#41 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83558&postcount=41)
Amiel is clearly referencing Queenstown.
In post#42 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=42)
Barry is referencing Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=43
post#43 jenni is referencing Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83610&postcount=44
post#44 TWM was clearly responding to the difficulty of the ACF charging Queenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83612&postcount=45
post#45
Amiel was still clearly referencing Queenstown Aus v Aus games.
My post referenced Amiel's #45.



<The rest of Bill's post snipped as it is based on a different interpretation of posts #39 to #45>.


starter


Not to mention http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85962&postcount=1

Which clearly includes Queenstown in the question, which assumes would be answered the first part (not usually) as well as answering the example I pose which would be (yes), not some vague link to a question unanswered.

All it says to me is the Billbot title is looking justified.. perhaps I shall phrase my next question 100100101000101110100101010101 to get an isomorphic response?

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2006, 10:51 AM
In post#39 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83528&postcount=39)
pax appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#40 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83557&postcount=40)
watto appeared to be referencing Queenstown.
In post#41 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83558&postcount=41)
Amiel is clearly referencing Queenstown.So what none of them relate to me rating the Queenstown event.

In post#42 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=42)
Barry is referencing Queenstown.Barry's post relates to the paying of the ACF admin fee, not whether I intend to rate it or not. This can be seen by his response to the wise man in post #46 http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83614&postcount=46

In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83607&postcount=43
post#43 jenni is referencing Queenstown.Yes and I responded to jenni's post in post #52 http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83622&postcount=52
If my last sentence in that post wasnt a big enough hint for you, then your lack of intelligence isnt my problem. I'm not here to hold your hand.

In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83610&postcount=44

post#44 TWM was clearly responding to the difficulty of the ACF charging Queenstown.It is clear he is referring to OS events in general. He never mentions Qyueenstown.
In http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83612&postcount=45
post#45
Amiel was still clearly referencing Queenstown Aus v Aus games.I disagree. His post is in response to TWM who made no reference to Queenstown.
However even so, he makes specific mention of rating AUS V AUS games only.
That was never going to happen and I said so.

My post referenced Amiel's #45. Exactly and my answer to him was the same as my answer to you. That rating the subset of games AUS V AUS wasnt going to happen.

<The rest of Bill's post snipped as it is based on a different interpretation of posts #39 to #45>.Not my problem if your interpretation is wrong.

Now go off and waste someone elses time, with your competitive index rubbish.

ursogr8
29-01-2006, 11:44 AM
So what none of them relate to me rating the Queenstown event.
The 'what' Bill, is that they provide the full context of the (post) conversation that led to Amiel's #45. Amiel's #45, at least to my reading at that point, asked in relation to (aus v Aus) in Queenstown games. If Amiel returns and says he did not mean Queenstown games then I will be shot down in flames.


Barry's post relates to the paying of the ACF admin fee, not whether I intend to rate it or not.

But clearly (by Barry) in the context of the lead-up conversation re Queenstown games.



This can be seen by his response to the wise man in post #46 http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83614&postcount=46
Yes and I responded to jenni's post in post #52 http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=83622&postcount=52
If my last sentence in that post wasnt a big enough hit for you, then your lack of intelligence isnt my problem. I'm not here to hold your hand.
I disagree. His post is inresponse to TWM who made no reference to Queenstown.
However even so, he makes specific mention of rating AUS V AUS games only.
That was never going to happen and I said so.
Exatly and my answer to him was the same as my answer to you. That rating the subset of games AUS V AUS wasnt going to happen.
Not my problem if your interpretation is wrong.
My post #62 was written after reading Amiel's post #45...the intervening posts (#46-) had at that stage not been read by me. So, all your theorising ^^ about my lack of intelligence is just that, theorising. (At least on this issue anyway. ;) )


Now go off and waste someone elses time, with you competitive index rubbish.

In case I left you off my Xmas cards list, I wish you a HNY too, Bill.


starter


ps

I think your 'hit' (sic) should read 'hint'.
I think your 'you' (sic) should read 'your'.
But I got the drift of your attempt. :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2006, 01:12 PM
The 'what' Bill, is that they provide the full context of the (post) conversation that led to Amiel's #45. Amiel's #45, at least to my reading at that point, asked in relation to (aus v Aus) in Queenstown games.Well your reading is simply wrong.
Up until Barry's post #42 no mention had been made of ratings whatsoever. Therefore your reference to post #39, #40 and #41 are totally irrelevant.
And as I said even if it was in relation to Queenstown games he was clearly referring to AUS V AUS Games only so my answer to him still stands.
If Amiel returns and says he did not mean Queenstown games then I will be shot down in flames.Given Amiel's penchant for stirring, I wouldnt take his response at face value.

But clearly (by Barry) in the context of the lead-up conversation re Queenstown games.As Barry made clear in post #46 he wasnt asking if it would be rated.

My post #62 was written after reading Amiel's post #45...the intervening posts (#46-) had at that stage not been read by me. So, all your theorising ^^ about my lack of intelligence is just that, theorising. (At least on this issue anyway. ;) )It is hardly my fault that you failed to read the subsequent post to Ameil's #45 before making your post #62.
If you had you wouldnt have started asking stupid questions.

ps

I think your 'hit' (sic) should read 'hint'.
I think your 'you' (sic) should read 'your'.Ah, so now your a typing checker.
In which case your eforrt was below par as you missed one. I also meant exactly instead of exatly.
I've made the necessary corrections.

But I got the drift of your attempt. :uhoh:Too bad you didnt get a clue earlier, prior to your post #62.

The_Wise_Man
29-01-2006, 02:19 PM
whoever played their required number of games in Queenstown regardless of which federation they are from will get an ACF rating?

Wise

ursogr8
29-01-2006, 07:09 PM
<snip>
If you had you wouldnt have started asking stupid questions.
<snip>

Just so I have it clear....when I ask the question it is a stupid question.

When Baz asks on the same issue (“Bill, will you be ACF rating Queenstown? “) he gets praise for asking the question.

Given that Amiel asked 11/1/2006, and Baz asked on 28/1/2006, and you were repeatedly coy in the interim, I now have insight into how you have achieved your high post-count. :rolleyes: :hand:


starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Just so I have it clear....when I ask the question it is a stupid question.

When Baz asks on the same issue (“Bill, will you be ACF rating Queenstown? “) he gets praise for asking the question.You asked an entirely different question to Barry. Your question had provisions on it i.e. AUS V AUS games.
Barry's was straightforward with no additional provisions.

Given that Amiel asked 11/1/2006, and Baz asked on 28/1/2006, and you were repeatedly coy in the interim, I now have insight into how you have achieved your high post-count. :rolleyes: :hand:And we can see how you got yours by repeatedly asking questions that were already answered. You even added another 5 in this thread.

Comprehension clearly is a problem with you.
Amiel asked a totally different question to Barry. Amiel asked about rating AUS V AUS games explicitly rather than rating the whole event. I answered his question.

Now go off and play with you competitive indexes.

ursogr8
29-01-2006, 10:17 PM
Now go off and play with you competitive indexes.
...........................................^...... ....................


In case I left you off my Xmas cards list, I wish you a HNY too, Bill.

Rincewind
29-01-2006, 10:46 PM
In case I left you off my Xmas cards list, I wish you a HNY too, Bill.

That reminds me. HCNY to one and all as we start the year of the dog! ;)

The_Wise_Man
25-02-2006, 08:54 PM
Just a question...

Using your logic for the main event in Queenstown being rated, is there any reason why you are also not rating the associated rapid event?

Wise

bergil
25-02-2006, 11:59 PM
Just a question...

Using your logic for the main event in Queenstown being rated, is there any reason why you are also not rating the associated rapid event?

Wise
Maybe because nobody really cares about a rapid rating?

Watto
02-03-2006, 01:05 PM
I answered the question that you put.
You directly linked it to Amiel's question of rating only AUS V AUS games.

If you cannot frame your question properly that is hardly my problem.

I even tried giving you a hint in post #69 when I said "Look at the actual question AR asked." The subsequent discussion up to post #75 where I told you to to think outside the box still didnt get you to see the light. Instead you gave up.

Barry's question is the simple, obvious and straightforward question, not your questions with all the additional qualifications added.

As such it got the simple, straightforward answer.

I've got a few comments to make about this. I played the whole
Queenstown tournament believing it was not going to be rated by the ACF, as did a few others. Prior to the event, Bill's responses on chesschat were ambiguous and unhelpful; what hints we got were negative. AFTER the event (far too late!!), we finally got the unambiguous answer from him (a yes) when a person phrased the question 'correctly'.

He's intelligent enough to have known there was a great deal of confusion and interest about whether Queenstown was going to be ACF rated.

He's the ACF ratings officer and as such should give clear, unambiguous advice. He's not here to be a puppet master or display his Sir Humphrey Appleby persona (although he does it very well). Chess officials should not use their positions to indulge in childish power games on Chesschat and should be held accountable. This was an inadequate performance.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 01:31 PM
I've got a few comments to make about this. I played the whole
Queenstown tournament believing it was not going to be rated by the ACF, as did a few others.So what. Are you implying you would have played your games differently if you had believed it was being rated.

Prior to the event, Bill's responses on chesschat were ambiguous and unhelpful; what hints we got were negative. AFTER the event (far too late!!), we finally got the unambiguous answer from him (a yes) when a person phrased the question 'correctly'.

He's intelligent enough to have known there was a great deal of confusion and interest about whether Queenstown was going to be ACF rated.Yes and not one clown came out and asked the question.

He's the ACF ratings officer and as such should give clear, unambiguous advice.On that basis I should be able to expect clear unambiguous questions.

He's not here to be a puppet master or display his Sir Humphrey Appleby persona (although he does it very well). Chess officials should not use their positions to indulge in childish power games on Chesschat and should be held accountable. This was an inadequate performance.And if I didnt post here at all like the vast majority of Chess Officials (and I can undertsand their attitude) you would have been none the wiser.
As such you were no worse off.

Gattaca
02-03-2006, 02:07 PM
What a pathetic response. It reinforces all the points made by Watto.

I rarely post here but this makes my blood boil. The ratings are not a personal fiefdom to be used to try and boost someone's sense of their own importance. The ratings officer is answerable to the ACF executive and the chessplayers they serve, not a law unto themselves.

Don't treat the chessplaying community with contempt, Bill. It was obvious people wanted to know whether the event would be rated in advance and you chose to play childish power games. (I've got the answer... you have to beg me for it.) The question, Which everyone else understood, wasn't framed to His Majesty's liking! So let's play little 'solve the puzzle' games with them.

Let me turn your ignorant response about whether Watto and others would have played differently, around. Do you, Bill, really think no-one ever chooses whether to play in a tournament based on whether it will be rated?

Are you also really incapable of understanding why it is essential that a decision on whether to rate an event MUST be made in advance, not retrospectively? And that it must be clearly seen to have been made before the event, especially when people are obviously querying that very matter?

If not, you are beyond reasoning with and we need a new ratings officer, it's as simple as that.

You should immediately apologise to the chess community for your behaviour in relation to the Queenstown event. I wonder what are the chances of that happening???

Rhubarb
02-03-2006, 04:20 PM
Jean & Guy, I can understand where you're coming from, but in Bill's defence he has to deal with so many ignorant idiots and trolls on ratings issues, he sometimes forgets about the (limited) third-party audience who are truly interested in the unadulterated answers.

It's important to remember that Bill is under no obligation whatsoever to post on this BB, and I believe that it was a temporary misjudgement on his part not disclosing that Queenstown would in fact be ACF-rated. His subsequent posts can charitably be attributed to inertia.

Oepty
02-03-2006, 05:31 PM
So what. Are you implying you would have played your games differently if you had believed it was being rated.


I think that there is a very strong chance that a player might be affected by whether a tournament is rated or not. A player might be more likely to play a speculative sacrifice, or accept a draw offer from a lower rated player, rather than fight it out for the win in time trouble. A player might try out a new opening, or play a gambit they would normally only play in blitz.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 06:39 PM
I think that there is a very strong chance that a player might be affected by whether a tournament is rated or not. A player might be more likely to play a speculative sacrifice, or accept a draw offer from a lower rated player, rather than fight it out for the win in time trouble. A player might try out a new opening, or play a gambit they would normally only play in blitz.Perhaps, but the event was being FIDE rated so I doubt that was an issue for the FIDE rated players especially the titled ones.

ursogr8
02-03-2006, 06:40 PM
Jean & Guy, I can understand where you're coming from,
:)

but in Bill's defence :eek:

he has to deal with so many ignorant idiots and trolls on ratings issues :eek:

he sometimes forgets about the (limited) third-party audience:eek:

who are truly interested in the unadulterated answers.:)


It's important to remember that Bill is under no obligation :cool:

whatsoever to post on this BB :eh:

and I believe that it was a temporary misjudgement on his part:doh:

not disclosing that Queenstown:naughty:

would in fact be ACF-rated. :cool:

His subsequent posts can charitably be attributed to inertia. :eek: :lol:



starter

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 06:44 PM
Jean & Guy, I can understand where you're coming from, but in Bill's defence he has to deal with so many ignorant idiots and trolls on ratings issues, he sometimes forgets about the (limited) third-party audience who are truly interested in the unadulterated answers.Quite true Greg.
I thought I had said enough in posts #52 and #55 of the Queenstown thread.

It's important to remember that Bill is under no obligation whatsoever to post on this BB, and I believe that it was a temporary misjudgement on his part not disclosing that Queenstown would in fact be ACF-rated. His subsequent posts can charitably be attributed to inertia.If Guy or you had asked the question back in the Queenstown thread I believe I would have answered the question. However I had seen it as just the usual suspects theorising about O/S events being rated free of charge and the possibility of rating AUS V AUS only games from O/S events. Starter as is his wont went off on his usual tangent and I got engrossed in trying to educate him. Alas I failed.

A significant number of Australians played in Queenstown and not one of them emailed me to ask if the event would or would not be rated. If they had they would have gotten an unambiguous answer.
I will point out that overseas Oceania Zonals have previously been ACF rated without it being preannounced that they would be rated and no one complained.
In fact after the Oceania Zonal in Fiji was ACF rated a few years back no one queried if the Oceania Zonal in NZ last year would be rated. Also no one complained that it was.
Based on that, to me the rating of Queenstown did not seem an issue.

ursogr8
02-03-2006, 08:50 PM
<snip>However I had seen it as just the usual suspects..................... <snip>





Based on that, to me the rating of Queenstown did not seem an issue.

Nice try at minimisation Bill. :rolleyes:
Hardly anyone else misunderstood except starter, eh.

Btw, are you classing Baz as a 'usual suspect'?

Rincewind
02-03-2006, 08:55 PM
Btw, are you classing Baz as a 'usual suspect'?

No, I'm unusually suspect. (adjective, not noun). ;)

ursogr8
02-03-2006, 09:05 PM
No, I'm unusually suspect. (adjective, not noun). ;)

:eek: :eek:

Another one-liner from you Baz.
Are you really on a mission to out-do gg''?

Suspicious, but not very transparent. :uhoh:

starter

Rincewind
02-03-2006, 09:11 PM
:eek: :eek:

Another one-liner from you Baz.
Are you really on a mission to out-do gg''?

Suspicious, but not very transparent. :uhoh:

starter

shhhh, less than 500 posts to go. ;)

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 09:15 PM
Nice try at minimisation Bill. :rolleyes:
Hardly anyone else misunderstood except starter, eh.It is your selective quoting here that exemplifies Gregs use of the term "ignorant idiots and trolls".

It is abundantly clear to the meanest intellect that my statement "Based on that, to me the rating of Queenstown did not seem an issue." was not at all related to "However I had seen it as just the usual suspects" but to the previous rating of Oceania Zonals.

I would have thought even someone whose brain has obviously been addled by his competitive index rubbish could have realised that.

ursogr8
02-03-2006, 09:17 PM
shhhh, less than 500 posts to go. ;)

It is OK...we will not draw attention to your ploy; I have been dismembered from the Punters Club and so the chance to bet is infrequent.

starter


ps........It would help you if you began to take an interest in the CI thread (again). :uhoh: :uhoh:

ursogr8
02-03-2006, 09:21 PM
It is your selective quoting here that exemplifies Gregs use of the term "ignorant idiots and trolls".

It is abundantly clear to the meanest intellect that my statement "Based on that, to me the rating of Queenstown did not seem an issue." was not at all related to "However I had seen it as just the usual suspects" but to the previous rating of Oceania Zonals.

I would have thought even someone whose brain has obviously been addled by his competitive index rubbish could have realised that.

So, Bill, would you like to close out discussion by listing all those who have posted on the relevant threads as seemingly (or is that unseemingly) confused by your answers. Just to get you startered, I guess you will be counting

Watto
G.
Baz
Me
Amiel

at least.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2006, 12:10 AM
So, Bill, would you like to close out discussion by listing all those who have posted on the relevant threads as seemingly (or is that unseemingly) confused by your answers. Just to get you startered, I guess you will be counting

Watto
G.
Baz
Me
Amiel

at least.Starter what can i say, you are an idiot.
Baz wasnt confused. He never asked if I was rating Queenstown. Neither did Watto. Amiel asked if I would rate AUS V AUS games only.
You were confused to start with and went off at a tangent as is your wont.

As I said go and waste your time on your ridiculous competitive index rubbish.

ursogr8
03-03-2006, 06:46 AM
Starter what can i say, you are an idiot.
Baz wasnt confused. He never asked if I was rating Queenstown.

Good morning Bill

This post that I provide the link to sure looks as though Baz asked if you were rating Queenstown (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85973&postcount=6) (for those of us who have been here long enough to know that Baz is one of Barry's pseudonyms).







Neither did Watto.
Bill, clearly I said that Watto was confused by your answers. Why would you post that I said she asked if Queenstown was to be rated?



<snip>


As I said go and waste your time on your ridiculous competitive index rubbish.


Have a nice day Bill.


regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2006, 08:32 AM
Good morning Bill

This post that I provide the link to sure looks as though Baz asked if you were rating Queenstown (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85973&postcount=6) (for those of us who have been here long enough to know that Baz is one of Barry's pseudonyms).Dont be such a damnded idiot.
You know as well as I do the Barry's post in this thread wasnt the issue, but was the Queenstown classic thread.


..other rubbish..I'm ignoring your nonsense.

Watto
03-03-2006, 08:56 AM
Jean & Guy, I can understand where you're coming from, but in Bill's defence he has to deal with so many ignorant idiots and trolls on ratings issues, he sometimes forgets about the (limited) third-party audience who are truly interested in the unadulterated answers.
That's the psychology of it perhaps but he does give as good as he gets. ;)
That third-party audience may not be so limited- if you look at the number of visitors to chesschat vs the number of people who post.


It's important to remember that Bill is under no obligation whatsoever to post on this BB, and I believe that it was a temporary misjudgement on his part not disclosing that Queenstown would in fact be ACF-rated. His subsequent posts can charitably be attributed to inertia.
I understand that- the part about being under no obligation to post (the rest remains charitable opinion ;)). But if he does post about ratings information, which he does frequently, then it's only fair that his posts be taken seriously, as coming from the ACF ratings officer (and judged accordingly- as I chose to in this instance); the fact that it's an optional arrangement doesn't change that.

Anyway, good day to you all, starter, Bill, Greg... etc.

Cheers
Jean

Rhubarb
04-03-2006, 08:44 AM
^ All good points, Jean. I was pretty sure Bill wasn't going to find too many friends on this issue so I thought I'd try a little mitigation.


:)
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:)
:cool:
:eh:
:doh:
:naughty:
:cool:
:eek: :lol:Starter, if I appoint you as my smilie annotator, how will people know when I'm being ambiguous? :P

ursogr8
04-03-2006, 01:37 PM
^ All good points, Jean. I was pretty sure Bill wasn't going to find too many friends on this issue so I thought I'd try a little mitigation.

Question: Starter, if I appoint you as my smilie annotator, how will people know when I'm being ambiguous? :P

Teacher, teacher, ....me, me, me....I think I know the answer...pick me...please.

:hmm:
:hmm:
:hmm:



Answer: Bill will tell everyone when I have quoted/annotated out of context. ;)


regards
starter

Watto
04-03-2006, 04:38 PM
^ All good points, Jean. I was pretty sure Bill wasn't going to find too many friends on this issue so I thought I'd try a little mitigation.


Thanks Greg. Fair enough.