PDA

View Full Version : 2006 Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships Discussion



AES
08-12-2005, 10:59 PM
Hi all,

Below is a letter Alan has sent to some chess coordinators in Australia. Apologies if you did not receive one. It is also in hte ACF bulletin. It is only a draft-so don't shoot it down in flames. There may be issues with dates/times etc which is why we have ensured that it is published well before the concrete sets.

We have taken on board the ICC issue and will basically treat the first tournament/year as a trial and see how the chess community respond to a tournament on ICC.

For those who have kindly offered their time/support, thank you and we will let you know shortly who we will be taking on. This decision will be made by those within hte ACF, not just SAJCL.

It is not too late to put in an application for anyone who wanted to see the draft proposal which will be distributed and discussed at the National conference. I know its past the due date!

Alan and I will see some of you at the Australian Schools Championships where we will be publicising the idea.

Kind regards,

Alex Saint.


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

Dear Chess Coordinator, Chess Friend


I am writing to you on behalf of the South Australian Junior Chess League (SAJCL) to advise you of a series of Junior Internet Tournaments that we plan to run in 2006. We will be seeking support for it from the Australian Chess Federation at the National Conference in January.



As you know, the internet is a fantastic median for playing chess (particularly for juniors) and yet no formal competitions have been arranged in Australia. We believe these events can only encourage more youngsters to play more chess and to help them improve the general standard of chess in this country.



We think our proposed events are innovative and exciting – and would welcome any feedback.



Many thanks



Alan Goldsmith

SAJCL President

6/12/05



General Format:

All games will be played on the Internet Chess Club (ICC). The ICC is already the chess server of choice for most of Australia’s top adult and junior players and is a particularly good environment for playing chess. It is also very aware and alert to the possibility of cheating. Players should be members of the ICC although some might play as guests and we will investigate creating some generic junior accounts to assist if necessary.
Games will be played on Sunday nights at 7:00pm EST from the players’ homes or a place convenient to them.
6 rounds over 6 weeks
1 hour each on the clock (except Allegro – 15 minutes).


Who runs it?

The State and Team tournaments will be run and financed to the tune of $2000 by the SAJCL in the first year – the individual events will have a $10 entry fee.
To add prestige and credibility to the tournaments, we will seek to have these events approved by the ACF at the National Conference.
There will be a sub-committee of the SAJCL who will be responsible for this tournament in 2006 and beyond.
We will have an Appeal Committee of FM Aaron Guthrie, IM Mark Chapman and James Obst, all who use ICC a lot, who can be responsible for any protests that occur in the tournament.


Tournaments:



In 2006, we propose to run four internet tournaments:



The 2006 Australian National Junior Interstate Chess Championship

Teams tournament between states involving the top juniors in Australia.

6 rounds: Feb 12, Feb 19, Feb 26, Mar 5, Mar 12, Mar 19
Every state would nominate 12 players (9 top boys, 3 top girls) and they will be play for their state in a Swiss event but will not need to play others from their State. The winning state will have the highest aggregate score.

6 rounds, 1 hour each.

Cost: free

Prize: Perpetual Trophy for the winning state, each member of the winning state: 1 year ICC subscription and a trophy.



The 2006 Australian National Junior Internet Chess Championships

Individual tournament, open to all juniors around Australia

6 rounds: May 14, May 21, May 28, June 4, June 11, June 18

6 rounds, 1 hour each.

Cost: $10 (all money goes to prizes for boys/girls and age groups)

Prizes: dependent on entries. Will be publicized before the 1st round.



The 2006 Australian National School Teams Internet Chess Championship

Teams tournament split in 4: primary open and girls, secondary open and girls

6 rounds: Aug 13, Aug 20, Aug 27, Sep 3, Sep 10, Sep 17

The top teams from each state will have the right to play in this. This tournament will be done before the Schools Teams Championship.

Cost: free

Prizes: Perpetual Shield for winning school, trophy for each winning participant and a year’s subscription to ICC.



The 2006 Australian National Junior Allegro Internet Chess Championship

Individual tournament, open to all juniors around Australia.

6 rounds: Oct 29, Nov 5, Nov 12, Nov 19, Nov 26, Dec 3

Cost: $10

Prizes: dependent on entries. Will be publicized before the 1st round.



Publicity:
Draws and pairings will be placed on a website each week (perhaps we could create a webpage as a part of the ACF website).
We will advertise on the Bulletin board (after National conference), in the ACF bulletin, in the Australian Chess Magazine and will write to all State Associations.
It would be good if it could be promoted with chess column writers around Australia.


Prizes:

Certificates to all participants (for Teams tournaments) and annual subscriptions to the ICC.
Could be presented at the Australian Chess Championship/Open closing ceremony along with other prizes.

Entering:
All entries will be done via the webpage.
Every player will have to agree to a set of conditions (in reference to cheating) which should limit that – if any youngster is found to receive help from a computer program or another person, they will not be allowed to take part in any further event.

Cheating/Protests:
If a player thinks their opponent cheated, they can lodge a complaint via email within 24 hours. This will be judged by our panel of experts of James, Mark and Aaron to decide. A ruling will be made and subsequent matches will be watched if there is a problem.
If a player is found guilty of cheating, they will be disqualified.
Also, ICC automatically will help the whole cheating possibility.

Sponsorship:
We also have some people in SA who may be willing to contribute.
We think many IT companies, Internet Providers and others will like the idea once it gets going.

Davidflude
09-12-2005, 02:13 PM
First before I start making any criticisms may I state that I think that this is a
great idea.


What are the specific reasons for using ICC rather than FICS or one of the other chess servers. I do not play on ICC because they ask for money.

What evidence is there that ICC is used by more Aussie servers. Currently
I am using three servers, one for on-line play and the other two for the Equivalent of Email play but using databases.

Another point is why only run junior tournaments. These days it is incredibly easy to connect four PC's to one broadband outlet using ethernet. Why not run
an Australia wide on-line teams championship.

Garvinator
09-12-2005, 02:15 PM
First before I start making any criticisms may I state that I think that this is a
great idea.


What are the specific reasons for using ICC rather than FICS or one of the other chess servers. I do not play on ICC because they ask for money.

What evidence is there that ICC is used by more Aussie servers. Currently
I am using three servers, one for on-line play and the other two for the Equivalent of Email play but using databases.

Another point is why only run junior tournaments. These days it is incredibly easy to connect four PC's to one broadband outlet using ethernet. Why not run
an Australia wide on-line teams championship.


Some of the answers you require are here:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3341&page=1

Davidflude
09-12-2005, 02:18 PM
The dates chosen appear to clash with at least two Of the Whitehouse Junior
playing dates.

Alan Shore
09-12-2005, 03:10 PM
First before I start making any criticisms may I state that I think that this is a
great idea.


What are the specific reasons for using ICC rather than FICS or one of the other chess servers. I do not play on ICC because they ask for money.

What evidence is there that ICC is used by more Aussie servers. Currently
I am using three servers, one for on-line play and the other two for the Equivalent of Email play but using databases.

That's not the only reason I'd recommend against going with ICC. There are many Australians on FICS.



Another point is why only run junior tournaments. These days it is incredibly easy to connect four PC's to one broadband outlet using ethernet. Why not run
an Australia wide on-line teams championship.

That's a really good idea. I may even come out of retirement to play some internet games, if it was for State, or whatever.

Frank Walker
09-12-2005, 03:16 PM
I beleive the whitehorse tournaments end at 5.30 but i definitely dont want my son coming back from 5 hours of chess and then playing for another 2 hours

Alan Shore
09-12-2005, 03:24 PM
I beleive the whitehorse tournaments end at 5.30 but i definitely dont want my son coming back from 5 hours of chess and then playing for another 2 hours

Why not? Many tournaments (weekenders) go for 10 hours of play per day. One day, it was 13 hours for 4 rounds. What's another 2 hours?

AES
10-12-2005, 10:18 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for the comments people-keep it coming! We want to know what dates dont work. We will take your suggestions on board and see what we can do.

Just to let you know we have got support from a lot of junior organisers from around Australia including people like Charles Zworestine, Jenni Oliver, Libby Smith, Graeme Gardiner, and many other organisers/players.

In the next week or so, we will be working on who will be on the 2006 organising team. (its not too late to let me know!)

Cheers,

Alex.

Jason Hu
11-12-2005, 05:18 AM
Ummm, does ICC know anything about this? They do not give previlages to run private tournaments easily.

There are also problems concerning running online tournaments. I really hope you guys thought it through...

Anyway, wish you all the best of luck.

AES
13-12-2005, 10:53 PM
Hi Jason,

Thanks for your reply.

ICC does not have to do anything. We are just letting them know out of courtesy that we are holding the tournament.

Each week players will know who they are going to play (via website) and they will do that either
a) Sunday Night, 7pm EST or
b) some other night (if they are busy on Sunday).

We had a huge response at the Australian Schools and it seems like it is going to be a real goer. There were many coordinators, organisers, teachers, DOPs, and most importantly juniors who love the idea and will be in it.

Thanks all,

Alex.

AES
20-12-2005, 09:41 AM
Ummm, does ICC know anything about this? They do not give previlages to run private tournaments easily.

There are also problems concerning running online tournaments. I really hope you guys thought it through...

Anyway, wish you all the best of luck.

ICC have confirmed that we can hold a tournament on ICC (the draw and that will be done outside of ICC).

I can also say that ICC has offered 2 months free membership to ICC for every participant in our tournaments including those already with ICC i believe.

We aim to make these tournaments accessible to everyone.

Trent Parker
20-12-2005, 01:19 PM
will we be seeing any bulletins from this tournament? :D :D :D :lol: :lol:

AES
20-12-2005, 02:36 PM
If someone wants to help out with that, that would be a great idea!

(GH is not on the committee :owned: )

AES
20-12-2005, 02:37 PM
On 27th/28th, we will be announcing the state co-ordinators and other roles in the committee prior to the National Conference in January.

Duff McKagan
20-12-2005, 02:45 PM
I'd like to see ICC offering me 2 free months :) Anyways we all could just get a seven day free trial to play in these tournaments, and keep coming back each week, very easy to do. Or better still, organise them on FICS, where there is a nice Aussie community in channel 230 (it could be bigger). Personally I'd like to see an Aussie server with both adults and kids and be free of other organisations/ventures. ICoN and zics.org are not serious places for chess players, so someone needs to host a new server, with the primary function being to organise these events.

pax
20-12-2005, 06:57 PM
I'd like to see ICC offering me 2 free months :) Anyways we all could just get a seven day free trial to play in these tournaments, and keep coming back each week, very easy to do. Or better still, organise them on FICS, where there is a nice Aussie community in channel 230 (it could be bigger). Personally I'd like to see an Aussie server with both adults and kids and be free of other organisations/ventures. ICoN and zics.org are not serious places for chess players, so someone needs to host a new server, with the primary function being to organise these events.

Mate, the last thing we need is *another* server. Remember the last Aussie Chess Server?

The only point in having a new server is if there is something which *can't* be done with the existing servers. Between FICS and ICC, pretty much all the bases are covered!

Davidflude
20-12-2005, 11:10 PM
I think that Junior teams is a great idea. I have some suggestions.

First I think that all members of a team should be in the same physical place preferably a chess club,and with an independant DOP. While software will catch cheating at fast time controls it is much less effective at tournament speeds.

In this day and age with broadband and ethernet modems which enable you to conect four (or even eight Computers) to the internet at once with no networking software.

jenni
21-12-2005, 08:43 AM
I think that Junior teams is a great idea. I have some suggestions.

First I think that all members of a team should be in the same physical place preferably a chess club,and with an independant DOP. While software will catch cheating at fast time controls it is much less effective at tournament speeds.
.

I think we need to make this as low impact as possible. We tried to get a similar comp going between the ACT and NSW this year, with the idea of expanding it to other states. In the end it didn't get off the ground (too busy not enough weekends left on the calendar etc). However some of the things that came through very clearly was that kids and parents didn't want another big commitment. Spending a few hours playing in your own home was fine, but to spend the time transporting kids to a central place and either hanging around or coming back again was fairly unattractive.

Also it is not that easy to get large numbers of computers in a single place - the Dorothy Dibley matches died for a number of reasons, but one of them was that neither Victoria nor WA were finding it easy to get 10 computers in one location.

We are not competing for sheep stations - I think we need to trust our kids that they are honourable and not so desperate to win that they would cheat.

AES
29-12-2005, 11:19 AM
The state coordinators for the 2006 Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships are as follows:

NSW - Jason Lyons
ACT - Libby Smith
VIC - Kerry Lyall
SA - Alan Goldsmith
TAS - Phil Donnelly
WA - Don Smith
QLD - no appropriate candidates so far. Email me at saca@sachess.org if you are interested.

Some people who missed out will be offered other roles on the committee.

Davidflude
29-12-2005, 07:17 PM
It is good to see this coming along well. There is another possibility for setting up the matches which is free and reliable but it may take a little bit of setting up and testing. If Kerri is reading this please Email me at
davidflude@pacific.net.au

AES
07-01-2006, 06:48 AM
Hi all,

I can confirm that the National Conference 2006 unanimously approved our idea for a Junior Internet Championships. The format for the Championships and the team of helpers were also approved. Victoria and Queensland abstained due to the dates of the events but in the case of Victoria this is too difficult to avoid with the Commonwealth games.

This is now an ACF approved event. The SAJCL, the ACF and all other state juior associations will be working together on this. This is not an SAJCL event.

The website will get going mid-late February. Sorry we can't get it up sooner but im in NZ!

We would like to thank the ACF for supporting this idea (in particular Dennis Jessop) and hope that we can improve the appeal and growth of chess in Australia through this new competition.

Thanks,
Alex.

Davidflude
07-01-2006, 10:39 AM
If this works than we should organise a seniors (over 65 competition). One of the Box Hill over 85 players no longer comes to the club as he has moved to a retrirement village. Instead he plays on FICS till all hours of the night.

There are an astonishing number of chess players who never play humans face to face just on the Internet.

AES
07-01-2006, 06:44 PM
If this works than we should organise a seniors (over 65 competition). One of the Box Hill over 85 players no longer comes to the club as he has moved to a retrirement village. Instead he plays on FICS till all hours of the night.

There are an astonishing number of chess players who never play humans face to face just on the Internet.

Absolutely. That is where this could go. There is no way this will stop at juniors.

Just to let you know, the Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships have First Division Sponsors secured for 2006:

Netlogistics
www.netlogistics.com.au

ChessChat
www.chesschat.org
Special thanks to Karthick.

South Australian Junior Chess League (SAJCL)
www.sajuniorchess.org

If anyone else would be interested in sponsoring this event, fire me an email - alexander.saint@student.adelaide.edu.au and i'll see what we can do.

AES
09-01-2006, 01:22 PM
The Disputes Committee for the Australian Internet Junior Championships is currently in the process of being formed. It will include players, arbiters and/or organisers (current or past) who are experienced, reliable and have obviously made a contribution to Australian chess at the state or national level. Most of all they will be able to objectively (as possible) make an approrpiate decision should a dispute arise. In some cases, the Disputes Committee will contain state coordinators of this competition.

We are not asking for applications. This will be done privately via email or PM. The Disputes Committee will be made up of people from every state.

We will announce this committee before the 16th of January.

Thanks,
Alex.

AES
16-01-2006, 07:14 AM
The Disputes Committee for the 2006 Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships so far:

Shaun Press
Jenni Oliver
Graeme Gardiner
Bill Gletsos
Alan Goldsmith
IM Mark Chapman

Other top players who wil be on the committee will be announced soon. Any suggestions or offers, email me at saca@sachess.org

Other positions announced within the week for publicity, website, and other positions.

thanks,
Alex.

ps all positions last from February 2006 - December 2006

AES
23-01-2006, 02:22 PM
Hi all,

Here are some more additions to our committee. There will be more. If there is anyone who i haven't contacted who is really keen to be on this committee, we don't want to exclude you! Just send me a PM or email (saca@sachess.org) and i am SURE we can find something for you to help us out with. This committee is not an exclusive club-it is a tournament that is for everyone.

Add to our Disputes Committee,
Kevin Bonham (Tas)

Also, in the role of publicity
Trent Parker

Analysis of Games:
Carl Gorka

website/sponsorship:
Alex Saint

In late 2006/2007,
We hope to expand our tournaments to include:
-tournaments for adults
-tournaments for rural players
-tournaments for uni students
-open tournaments for everyone

The new website has been decided and will be announced on February 10th. Sorry it can't be earlier but i am still in NZ.

Thanks everyone for your words of encouragement. We hope that this event is a success. And remember, if you want to help out and be actively involved, we would love to have your assistance.

Cheers,
Alex.

AES
27-01-2006, 07:09 PM
Hi all,

We have a few new positions that have been decided.

Website Results and Publicity
Jon Paxman
Putting up Swiss Perfect results, press releases, etc.

ACF Representative:
Bill Gletsos (ACF Vice-President)
This is just to ensure that we do everything in accordance with ACF rules and regulations.

Parents Represntative
Jenni Oliver
This position is as a point of contact for parents wanting to provide an opinion on a particular competition etc.

Thanks all,
Alex.

jenni
28-01-2006, 08:57 AM
Parents Represntative
Jenni Oliver
This position is as a point of contact for parents wanting to provide an opinion on a particular competition etc.

.

My interpretation of this is that if any parent (or junior), wants info, or wishes to pass on an idea or make a complaint, but is a bit intimidated by the chess hierarachy, then they can contact me. I will then point them in the right direction for info, explain a situation, or pass on their ideas/complaints in an anonymous way if desired.

Alan Shore
28-01-2006, 09:13 AM
My interpretation of this is that if any parent (or junior), wants info, or wishes to pass on an idea or make a complaint, but is a bit intimidated by the chess hierarachy, then they can contact me...

They might be more intimidated by your hyena avatar Jenni... ;)

Hey P.S. who's the QLD rep?

Denis_Jessop
28-01-2006, 09:42 AM
If this works than we should organise a seniors (over 65 competition). One of the Box Hill over 85 players no longer comes to the club as he has moved to a retrirement village. Instead he plays on FICS till all hours of the night.

There are an astonishing number of chess players who never play humans face to face just on the Internet.

I'm a bit late in responding to this but I see various other possibilities. One obvious one that I should like to see is full scale Inter-State matches along the lines of the very popular telegraphic matches that used to take place years ago. The geographic set-up in Australia means that very many players, even the stronger ones, rarely get to play outside their local area, a particular problem for Western Australians and also South Australia and Tasmania.

DJ

jenni
28-01-2006, 10:04 AM
They might be more intimidated by your hyena avatar Jenni... ;)

Hey P.S. who's the QLD rep?

Nonsense - they've all seen the Lion King and know the Hyena is incredibly cowardly and retreats at the wiff of a challenge.....

Alan Shore
02-02-2006, 11:10 AM
Alex, who is the QLD rep, you have not listed them.

AES
02-02-2006, 11:20 AM
It is Graeme Gardiner.

More info will be up Sat morning. Sorry about that.

(if you don't mind i might delete these replies, its supposed to be that noone can reply to this thread! :D )

Trent Parker
02-02-2006, 11:46 AM
Last three posts were copy and pasted here from the "welcome - Please read before making comments" thread in Aus Internet jnr champs forum.

when merging forgot to change name. having troubles doing this now.... for some reason.

AES
04-02-2006, 11:17 AM
All details + website will be available Wednesday as promised.

Please note that the first round is not the 12th as previously advertised but the 19th of February. Apologies that i didn't put that up earlier.

Garvinator
04-02-2006, 11:24 AM
It is Graeme Gardiner.

More info will be up Sat morning. Sorry about that.

(if you don't mind i might delete these replies, its supposed to be that noone can reply to this thread! :D )
There is no formal qld representative. Nothing came through the caq council for discussion on this matter.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2006, 11:40 AM
There is no formal qld representative. Nothing came through the caq council for discussion on this matter.Irrelevant.
The event is santioned by the ACF.
The organiser generally has the freedom to choose whoever they wish to be part of their event, just like organisers can choose who they wish to be arbiters.
After all no State Association sanctionmed you as 2IC for Mt. Buller.

If a State Association had an issue with any representative they could take it up with the ACF Council to make a ruling.

Libby
06-02-2006, 01:29 PM
Irrelevant.
The event is santioned by the ACF.
The organiser generally has the freedom to choose whoever they wish to be part of their event, just like organisers can choose who they wish to be arbiters.
After all no State Association sanctionmed you as 2IC for Mt. Buller.

If a State Association had an issue with any representative they could take it up with the ACF Council to make a ruling.

I don't think it's entirely irrelevant depending on the way you want the competition or your state organisation to run.

I ran into a similar issue when I was congratulated on my "appointment."

ACTJCL takes responsibility for junior chess in Canberra. At our meeting, I expect ACTJCL will name a delegate for this role and I will happily step down as my cup runneth over (so to speak).

As we are the controlling body for junior chess in the ACT I think it's most appropriate that we select a delegate to be ratified by the tournament organisers (and I can't imagine when this would generate conflict).

Now in some states, if there are conflicting interests and perceived factions & favouritism and any whiff of bias about who these opportunities (selections in effect, to participate) are extended to ...

Do I think there will be these problems? I'd hope not but some undercurrents run deep.

pax
06-02-2006, 01:33 PM
It depends on how you view the positions.

If they are 'representatives of the organising committee in each state', then they are the responsibility of the organising committee.

If they are 'representatives of the state on the organising committee', then they are the responsibility of the appropriate state bodies.

I would tend to regard them as the former, unless the state bodies were asked to appoint representatives.

AES
06-02-2006, 02:47 PM
Now in some states, if there are conflicting interests and perceived factions & favouritism and any whiff of bias about who these opportunities (selections in effect, to participate) are extended to ...

Do I think there will be these problems? I'd hope not but some undercurrents run deep.

Hi all,

Thanks Libby for your response.

We have tried to avoid the situation where we simply select people who will support our ideas or intentions in the following ways:
- being transparent (as much as possible)
- announcing anything on chesschat.org or via bulletins (Paul B)
- ensuring that we advertise publicly for positions like we did on chesschat.org for state representatives. I haven't had any arguments over our appointments.
-Finally, i have been in constant contact with ACF President Dennis Jessop, and ensured that we are doing things by the book. We ensured that the idea was passed at the National Conference. We have even appointed an ACF representative to ensure that noone can get too much control.
-In regards to the website, we have ensured that there are 3 people who can update results, provide articles etc.
-Also we have 3 of 4 people on teh committee who are against the idea of using ICC. We could have easily left them off the list but we have included them in roles.


I hope this is a satisfactory response to the concerns out there.

I think that in future, all state junior leagues can appoint a rep as Libby suggested. We will be advising the junior leagues to do just that in our next email.

Cheers,
Alex

Libby
06-02-2006, 03:44 PM
Sorry, not intending to suggest any conspiracies on behalf of the organisers or the representatives - only that such things can grow legs (and two heads) of their own because of the fragmented and uncooperative nature of junior chess in some areas.

For example, ACTJCL is proposing the allocation of a room for each state for prep & analysis at the 2007 Juniors. Apparently that won't work because some people "can't" be in the same room as others from the same state etc.

And, of course, there are not JCLs in all states to appoint representatives for this anyway.

And pax, I do understand the role that the organisers are looking for and, in effect, I was appointed as their representative in the ACT and not as the ACTJCL's representative for the competition.

But in the day-to-day practical sense of how we run things in Canberra it is far more appropriate that a member of the ACTJCL be appointed (by ACTJCL) to manage our participation in the ACF sanctioned internet competitions. Just as we appoint a team manager to get our players to the Aus Juniors and a coordinator to get our teams to Aus Schools. It's just more in line with how we operate.

AES
08-02-2006, 07:44 PM
It is Graeme Gardiner.

More info will be up Sat morning. Sorry about that.

(if you don't mind i might delete these replies, its supposed to be that noone can reply to this thread! :D )

Apologies that is incorrect. Graeme is QLD rep for disputes committee.

Ian Murray is the temporary QLD rep. Really it hasnt been finalised.

Apologies,
Alex.

Garvinator
08-02-2006, 11:29 PM
Apologies that is incorrect. Graeme is QLD rep for disputes committee.

Ian Murray is the temporary QLD rep. Really it hasnt been finalised.

Apologies,
Alex.
Just an update,

CAQ Council is now discussing who to ask about being the qld representative. We should have an answer in a couple of days.

AES
09-02-2006, 09:46 AM
We have selected someone, just checking with Ian Murray

arosar
09-02-2006, 09:53 AM
I have added you as a permanent link to my blog's sidebar, as you requested. Sadly, I cannot add banners as this is a technical limitation.

Some exclusive tidbits would be appreciated. Thanks,

AR

AES
09-02-2006, 11:02 PM
2 changes to state coordinators

1) Queensland: Kieron Olm-Milligan

2) New South Wales: Michael Lip (voted in at NSWJCL Council Meeting)

Congratulations to these people on their new appointments.

AES
10-02-2006, 11:37 AM
Michael Lip and Jason Lyons will be joint NSW coordinators in 2006.
Subsequent years will involve the junior leagues voting in a coordinator.

arosar
10-02-2006, 11:42 AM
Michael Lip and Jason Lyons will be joint NSW coordinators in 2006.
Subsequent years will involve the junior leagues voting in a coordinator.

Hhhmmmm....

AR

AES
10-02-2006, 11:47 AM
arosar, ive pmed ya.

AES
10-02-2006, 12:04 PM
After discussions with Dennis Jessop, NSWJCL president Charles Zworestine and Richard Gastineau-Hills, I have had to do a double back flip.

Michael Lip is the sole NSW coordinator.

I have spoken to Jason who has accepted my position and the position of the NSWJCL. He has been offered another role on the committee.

Kind regards,
Alex.

Libby
12-02-2006, 01:22 PM
Hi Alex

I noticed on the website that there are some contradictory bits of scheduling (I think).

Your brochure (in the pdf format anyway, still having trouble with the word version) advertises -

Interstate Teams from 19/2
then Open event
"Bugman" from 13/8
and Teams from 29/10

This contradicts the calendar http://www.ausnetchess.org/calendar.htm and the original schedule advertised here. Can you confirm which bit is correct before we look to use the brochures for advertising? Also, just doesn't pay to have a mix of info in the public domain as not everyone will come back to the website often enough to appreciate any changes.

Also, the proposed "brochure" dates (which I am assuming are the wrong ones) would have the Schools event clashing with the ASTC itself - which isn't a go-er.

Finally, I am still after an answer on "reserves" for this first event. Yes, we have a committed player group but they don't have a full grasp of school commitments (even things like camps away from home) or sports scheduling etc, this early into their academic year.

I know you asked people to advise of obvious clashes but the point is that every weekend is a potential obvious clash for some children, especially those who travel interstate to tournaments. If you're driving home on the Hume Hwy, chances are you can't play your game that Sunday evening.

Is there a mechanism, not to allow sulking by underperforming drips, but to allow those who are unavailable - and able to give adequate notice - to be substituted in Team events?

I couldn't find this under FAQ.

Thanks - and well done on your efforts so far

Libby

Rincewind
12-02-2006, 01:47 PM
I noticed on the website that there are some contradictory bits of scheduling (I think).

Your brochure (in the pdf format anyway, still having trouble with the word version) advertises -

Interstate Teams from 19/2
then Open event
"Bugman" from 13/8
and Teams from 29/10

Looks contradictory to me too. Likewise the word version doesn't work here. Personally, I don't know why one would bother with a DOC file if the document is published in PDF. One might like to have a DOC version for editing but just publish the PDF, it's one of the most standard file formats there is.

According to the pdf file I see the it is Allegro which is starting on 13/8. If this is meant to be bughouse allegro then I think that should be specified as it isn't intuitive so (not to me anyway).

Libby
12-02-2006, 01:52 PM
The ACT team for the first event is -

Junta Ikeda, 2032 :owned:
Khoi Hoang, 1746 :cool:
Kishore Sreetharan, 1742 :owned:
Sherab Guo Yuthok, 1706 :cool:
Yi Yuan, 1574 :clap:
Andrew Brown, 1573 :cool:
Justin Chow, 1346 :D
Edward Xing, 1342 :clap:
Miona Ikeda, 1285 :angel:
Emma Guo, 1197 :owned:
Kayleigh Smith, 1145 :pray:
Alana Chibnall, 928 :)

Now, 'fess up - who are we up against?

Libby

jenni
12-02-2006, 02:51 PM
Well done Libby - looks like a good team, even if you did get a few knockbacks :rolleyes:

AES
12-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Hi Alex

I noticed on the website that there are some contradictory bits of scheduling (I think).

Your brochure (in the pdf format anyway, still having trouble with the word version) advertises -

Interstate Teams from 19/2
then Open event
"Bugman" from 13/8
and Teams from 29/10

This contradicts the calendar http://www.ausnetchess.org/calendar.htm and the original schedule advertised here. Can you confirm which bit is correct before we look to use the brochures for advertising? Also, just doesn't pay to have a mix of info in the public domain as not everyone will come back to the website often enough to appreciate any changes.

Also, the proposed "brochure" dates (which I am assuming are the wrong ones) would have the Schools event clashing with the ASTC itself - which isn't a go-er.

Finally, I am still after an answer on "reserves" for this first event. Yes, we have a committed player group but they don't have a full grasp of school commitments (even things like camps away from home) or sports scheduling etc, this early into their academic year.

I know you asked people to advise of obvious clashes but the point is that every weekend is a potential obvious clash for some children, especially those who travel interstate to tournaments. If you're driving home on the Hume Hwy, chances are you can't play your game that Sunday evening.

Is there a mechanism, not to allow sulking by underperforming drips, but to allow those who are unavailable - and able to give adequate notice - to be substituted in Team events?

I couldn't find this under FAQ.

Thanks - and well done on your efforts so far

Libby

Hi Libby,

Just to answer a few of your questions.

The brochure files are incorrect (the calendar one is correct). Apologies will correct in the next day or so. The schools competition is in term 3-further details of this will be up later. The Allegro/Blitz/Bughouse is in term 4.

Libby, yes the reserves need to contact their state coordinator ASAP. The latter you leave it, the harder it will be. Each state should have 1 reserve who is under 18 and 1 who is under 12. A girl should be replaced with a girl where possible. Hope this helps.

Rincewind, the doc file was requested by some so we provided that. I dont think there is any problem in providing another option
:owned:

I shall make the whole Allegro thing clearer.

Cheers,
Alex.

Rincewind
12-02-2006, 09:42 PM
Rincewind, the doc file was requested by some so we provided that. I dont think there is any problem in providing another option
:owned:

Well since Libby and myself can't access the Word version, did you provide another option?

AES
12-02-2006, 09:54 PM
Well since Libby and myself can't access the Word version, did you provide another option?

Yes, PDF

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2006, 10:09 PM
Whatever that supposed calendar.doc file is, it certainly isnt a Microsoft Word document.

AES
12-02-2006, 10:25 PM
Whatever that supposed calendar.doc file is, it certainly isnt a Microsoft Word document.

Hi all,

Thanks for this. Ive been in contact with the web designer and these .doc files were created by him.

.doc files from my computer are ok. Therefore will fix tonight.

Thanks all for your interest and letting me know. I really appreciate it.

Cheers all,
Alex

AES
12-02-2006, 11:47 PM
Im really sorry about this but i'll have to do it tomorrow night.

yawn..getting tired. Have been organising this all day.


Apologies all. I hope you understand.

Rincewind
13-02-2006, 05:52 AM
Yes, PDF

Yes, that is ONE option. My question was did you provide ANOTHER option?

AES
13-02-2006, 06:15 AM
Yes, that is ONE option. My question was did you provide ANOTHER option?

Hi Rincewind,

Sorry, I don't quite follow you. What is another option apart from PDF if you don't want a word doc?

Cheers,
Alex

ps i spoke to Alan and we agree with your opinion here. Word docs can be changed, PDFs can't. Thanks Rincewind for the advice. Greatly appreciated.

Rincewind
13-02-2006, 06:54 AM
Sorry, I don't quite follow you. What is another option apart from PDF if you don't want a word doc?

No I was commenting on your statement. You said "I dont think there is any problem in providing another option". As a most people don't seem to be able to read the doc file I was just wondering if you were, in fact, providing another option. There is no question that a doc file would be another option, the question is: was that what you were providing?


ps i spoke to Alan and we agree with your opinion here. Word docs can be changed, PDFs can't. Thanks Rincewind for the advice. Greatly appreciated.

No problem. I am only a casual observer in this forum. As Libby reported some issue I thought it would be worth checking into to give you more feedback and help determine if the problem was client or (as it appears in this case) server related.

arosar
13-02-2006, 09:33 AM
After discussions with Dennis Jessop, NSWJCL president Charles Zworestine and Richard Gastineau-Hills, I have had to do a double back flip.

Michael Lip is the sole NSW coordinator.

I have spoken to Jason who has accepted my position and the position of the NSWJCL. He has been offered another role on the committee.

Kind regards,
Alex.


Alex -

What was the reason for Jason's dismissal? It seems a very shabby treatment indeed. You hire the guy, sack him, rehire him then sack him again. What is this? What sort of pressure were those 2 goons from the NSWJCL applying on you? What have they got on you exactly?

AR

Alan Shore
13-02-2006, 02:00 PM
Alex -

What was the reason for Jason's dismissal? It seems a very shabby treatment indeed. You hire the guy, sack him, rehire him then sack him again. What is this? What sort of pressure were those 2 goons from the NSWJCL applying on you? What have they got on you exactly?

AR

I think the problematic part is, applications were supposed to be received independently of any kind of state chess council selection intervention - why there's been a backflip on this selection criteria is baffling.

arosar
13-02-2006, 02:25 PM
I think the problematic part is, applications were supposed to be received independently of any kind of state chess council selection intervention - why there's been a backflip on this selection criteria is baffling.


Also, Alex is losing a lot of face in this - not really showing a lot of backbone - just getting all whipped like a baby by a coupla wannabe-hoodlums.

More importantly, Jase runs the risk of also losing face. Without public clarification from Alex, it looks like Jase had his credentials questioned, etc..etc...So this is why Mr Alex Saint must speak up now instead of digging deeper into his cowardly little burrow and behaving like a regular prima donna saying, "no comment!"

AR

AES
13-02-2006, 04:45 PM
Also, Alex is losing a lot of face in this - not really showing a lot of backbone - just getting all whipped like a baby by a coupla wannabe-hoodlums.

More importantly, Jase runs the risk of also losing face. Without public clarification from Alex, it looks like Jase had his credentials questioned, etc..etc...So this is why Mr Alex Saint must speak up now instead of digging deeper into his cowardly little burrow and behaving like a regular prima donna saying, "no comment!"

AR

Hi arosar,

When i am being told by ACF President Denis Jessop to make the change as well as NSWJCL President i start to listen. Jason had told us he would inform NSWJCL about his appointment this was not done.

Jason has accepted the decision and has accepted another position on the committee.

Jason knows my position on the matter but i dont want to start WWIII.

i think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Cheers,
Alex

AES
13-02-2006, 04:47 PM
Also, Alex is losing a lot of face in this - not really showing a lot of backbone - just getting all whipped like a baby by a coupla wannabe-hoodlums.

More importantly, Jase runs the risk of also losing face. Without public clarification from Alex, it looks like Jase had his credentials questioned, etc..etc...So this is why Mr Alex Saint must speak up now instead of digging deeper into his cowardly little burrow and behaving like a regular prima donna saying, "no comment!"

AR

This is a complete overreaction. When have i said, no comment?

AES
13-02-2006, 04:49 PM
I think the problematic part is, applications were supposed to be received independently of any kind of state chess council selection intervention - why there's been a backflip on this selection criteria is baffling.

This was prior to our decision to get it approved at the National Conference.

Once ACF titles are invovled, the situation changes or so i'm told.

Look, Jason doesn't have a problem so i think it best we don't perpetuate somethign that isn't there.

Nevertheless, i respect your concern for Jason as I agree that it was a mistake on my part (not Alan's) to not clarify on chesschat.org that you must inform your junior league/state assocation when you have got your position. I made the mistake of assuming Jason was on the committee given his credentials. I was wrong and I apologise. it won't happen again.

Cheers all,
Alex.

jenni
13-02-2006, 05:11 PM
Alex - don't make the mistake of debating with Arosar - he just delights in stirring and embarrasing people. :)

Rincewind
13-02-2006, 05:24 PM
Alex - don't make the mistake of debating with Arosar - he just delights in stirring and embarrasing people. :)

I'd have to agree with this assessment. Many of arosar's hobby-horses turn out to be rather badly beaten up. Some one should report him to the RSPCA. :D

AES
13-02-2006, 05:37 PM
I guess i didn't want him or anyone else think i was doing anything dodge. You know, under the table..

Garvinator
13-02-2006, 05:48 PM
I guess i didn't want him or anyone else think i was doing anything dodge. You know, under the table..
i thought you would have learnt about arosar from mt buller Alex. Dont reply to anything he types. All you do is give it more air-time instead of it just passing into the ether of internet posts.

Alan Shore
13-02-2006, 06:39 PM
i thought you would have learnt about arosar from mt buller Alex. Dont reply to anything he types. All you do is give it more air-time instead of it just passing into the ether of internet posts.

I thought you two made up in Brisbane.. no?

arosar
13-02-2006, 06:41 PM
I thought you two made up in Brisbane.. no?

I gave him a big hug.

Anyway, his comment is fair.

AR

arosar
13-02-2006, 06:58 PM
Hi arosar,

When i am being told by ACF President Denis Jessop to make the change as well as NSWJCL President i start to listen. Jason had told us he would inform NSWJCL about his appointment this was not done.

Jason has accepted the decision and has accepted another position on the committee.

Jason knows my position on the matter but i dont want to start WWIII.

i think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Cheers,
Alex

All I will say is, payback's a bitch! Ain't it?

AR

dunwannapost
13-02-2006, 11:45 PM
Sarah Behne-Smith
James Cronan
Justin Huang
Joshua Lau
John McMahon
Blair Mandla
Jordan Morris
Deborah Ng
Eric Shi
Emma Storey
Vincent Suttor
Ronald Yu

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2006, 12:11 AM
Tasmania is playing and our team's been selected pending final acceptances.

cincinnatus
14-02-2006, 09:01 AM
Once ACF titles are involved ...

Are ACF titles involved? If so, you won't want to repeat the SACA absurdity of running a supposedly authorised "Australian Allegro Championship" year after year when the ACF will not recognise "allegro" titles. (The argument being that "allegro", describing any time control from G/6 to G/29, is too vague a term).

Once the ACF wakes up you might also find that:

they prefer the term "lighting" to "blitz".
they will not authorise a fairy chess title, so your "bughouse" tournament cannot be called an "Australian" championship. (In any case, the Australian term for this game is "transfer").
with your events constructed as they are, titles such as U/16, Girls, etc., cannot be awarded.
the BY-LAWS FOR ACF TOURNAMENTS page needs to be updated.

I'm sorry I've usurped your hard-working ACF representative in all of this.

AES
14-02-2006, 09:14 AM
Hi cinny,

Yeah i called Denis last night about that exact point and he wasnt sure. He said he would bring it up before the committee.

I must confess my knowledge of laws and by-laws is very limited. I have no interest in it at all.:uhoh:

AES
14-02-2006, 09:29 AM
Having said that we are very intersted to act within the by-laws.

Im terribly sorry chess public but i will no longer be able to be the liason person via chesschat anymore as i am too busy with this website.

We have a big team helping us so i will try and find someone for that role.

Responses may take a few days while we work that out.

ps do remember the conditions of this sub-forum that under 12s may be reading this. Cheers.

Alan Shore
14-02-2006, 01:35 PM
Im terribly sorry chess public but i will no longer be able to be the liason person via chesschat anymore as i am too busy with this website.

We have a big team helping us so i will try and find someone for that role.

But it takes two seconds!


ps do remember the conditions of this sub-forum that under 12s may be reading this. Cheers.


OK, maybe not get Matt? ;)

jenni
14-02-2006, 01:45 PM
But it takes two seconds!

Two things

1st - you can find yourself doing so much and stretched so thin that even two secs is about 1.5 too many.

2nd - so many of the posts are such rubbish and more aimed at creating excitement or paying back old scores, that spending time responding can take a long time and be totally unproductive....

Alan Shore
14-02-2006, 02:13 PM
I find the busier I am, the more I get done.

Hey Jenni, are you still organising that university comp? Have you considered making that online too?

cincinnatus
14-02-2006, 02:16 PM
I must confess my knowledge of laws and by-laws is very limited. I have no interest in it at all.

Here, then, is my two cents worth:

Put the following or similar motion to the next ACF Council meeting (or have an email vote). Your ACF representative should be able to expedite this.

Motion:

"That in Part 2, Titles, of the BY-LAWS FOR ACF TOURNAMENTS:

"Junior titles ( " [junior] " ) will be awarded" be replaced by "Junior titles ( " [junior] " ) may be awarded".

"That after "23. Australian Clubs Teams Champions"

"24. Australian Junior Internet Champion State
25. Australian Junior Internet Chess Champion
26. Australian Junior Allegro (G/20) Internet Champion
27. Australian Junior Lightning Internet Champion
28. Australian Secondary Schools Open Teams Internet Champion
29. Australian Primary Schools Open Teams Internet Champion"

be added."

When the competition expands and becomes more representative, "Junior" in 24. to 27. can be replaced by " [junior] " allowing for the award of the full gamut of Age and Girls titles.

Specifying a time control ("Allegro (G/20)") may get around the ACF's previous objections to the term "allegro".

The ACF has no jurisdiction over chess variants, so do what you please with the bughouse event. Maybe it would cause less confusion if you're using ICC, to stick with the horrible American moniker "bughouse".

When this is all official, update your webpage to reflect the "official" names.

Oepty
14-02-2006, 02:22 PM
As far as I know this year was meant to be a trial of the concept and then if successful things like making it full offical, as opposed to an ACF backed trial, would happen.
Scott

jenni
14-02-2006, 02:45 PM
I find the busier I am, the more I get done.

Hey Jenni, are you still organising that university comp? Have you considered making that online too?

Yes I am - arrangements almost complete and we will start publicising it soon. I did mention it in another post, but no-one took me up on it.

I did think about making it online and there is no reason why one can't be done. However with the one I am trying to do the social side has equal weight with the chess. I even have at least 3 females promising to come.....

I have put forward the names

Australian Universities Rapid Champion
Australian Universities Rapid Team Champion

Maybe Cinni would like to run his eye over them to check for correctness.

The time control is 20 + 10.

arosar
14-02-2006, 03:01 PM
However with the one I am trying to do the social side has equal weight with the chess. I even have at least 3 females promising to come.....

Now listen here Mrs Oliver, we don't wanna see this business of some rule that requires teams to have 'X' number of sheilas - like that event they have up in QLD somewhere.

So I think if you can manage this, you have out 101% support.

AR

Oepty
14-02-2006, 03:08 PM
Now listen here Mrs Oliver, we don't wanna see this business of some rule that requires teams to have 'X' number of sheilas - like that event they have up in QLD somewhere.

So I think if you can manage this, you have out 101% support.

AR

Amiel, Why not? This junior internet thing does.
Scott

jenni
14-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Now listen here Mrs Oliver, we don't wanna see this business of some rule that requires teams to have 'X' number of sheilas - like that event they have up in QLD somewhere.

So I think if you can manage this, you have out 101% support.

AR

Nah - no rules like that (not that those rules don't have my support as a development tool).

I was just commenting on the fact that it wasn't going to be an all male event, thus hopefully more social. (although of course depending on orientation that may not be a plus).

Garvinator
14-02-2006, 03:51 PM
like that event they have up in QLD somewhere.
which event was this:hmm:

ursogr8
14-02-2006, 04:02 PM
which event was this:hmm:

I jumped to the theory that it was the TEAMS event held twice (in my memory), and managed by Graham G..

Alan Shore
14-02-2006, 06:30 PM
I jumped to the theory that it was the TEAMS event held twice (in my memory), and managed by Graham G..

The Australian Teams Championships, run by Kerry Corker. It was apparently good the first time as a novelty but a dismal failure the second year and discontinued..

cincinnatus
15-02-2006, 01:54 PM
This thread #86

As far as I know this year was meant to be a trial of the concept and then if successful things like making it full offical, as opposed to an ACF backed trial, would happen.

There is no sense in having an "Australian Thingummyjig Championship" if the winner can't call his- or herself the "Australian Thingummyjig Champion". The aforementioned Australian Teams Championship was clearly of more questionable long term viability and format than these Internet events, but the introduction of a title for the event was all part of the package. So there are three ways to go:


get the ACF to add the titles to its BY-LAWS.
get the Junior Internet Championship organisers to reverse their presumption and remove "Australian" from the names of their events.
do nothing, and become a laughing stock like the "Australian Allegro Championships".

Clearly, the progressive path is Option 1.

Oepty
15-02-2006, 04:11 PM
Hello All. I am now the chesschat laison from the committee. I will be monitoring this BB for any queries and answering them if I can, but most likely getting in touch with Alex and/or Alan about the query so that you can get an answer. I am not on here everyday, but I will be on as much as possible. I will also post information on behalf of the committee.

First act in this position is too make 2 announcements.

1. Unfortunately WA will not be fielding a team in the interstate competition. This means it will be a 6 team, 5 round competition. This means there now will be a free weekend on March 12th so there is no clash with the Ballarat Begonia Weekender.

2. The first round draw is,
New South Wales - Tasmania
Victoria - South Australia
ACT - Queensland

The individual draws should be up on the website later tonight, although not all players have individually registered on the website yet. If you are in this category please register immediately.

Scott Colliver
Chesschat Liason Officer straight from Alan's shop.

Oepty
15-02-2006, 04:12 PM
This thread #86


There is no sense in having an "Australian Thingummyjig Championship" if the winner can't call his- or herself the "Australian Thingummyjig Champion". The aforementioned Australian Teams Championship was clearly of more questionable long term viability and format than these Internet events, but the introduction of a title for the event was all part of the package. So there are three ways to go:


get the ACF to add the titles to its BY-LAWS.
get the Junior Internet Championship organisers to reverse their presumption and remove "Australian" from the names of their events.
do nothing, and become a laughing stock like the "Australian Allegro Championships".

Clearly, the progressive path is Option 1.

This issue is currently being handled by the committee

Scott Colliver
Chesschat Liason Officer

klyall
15-02-2006, 08:58 PM
Victoria's team is as follows

Chris Wallis 2055 :P
Dusan Stojic 1995 :)
Eugene Schon 1611 :D
Cedric Antolis 1550 :cool:
Derek Yu 1505 :owned:
Udit Thakur 1247 :lol:
Sally Yu 1164 :clap:
Rocheleh Ziffer 1098 :D
Susan Sheng 1085 :clap:
Yi Liu 1043 :P
Thomas Feng 987 :lol:
Laurence Matheson 984 :P

jenni
15-02-2006, 09:19 PM
Well done Kerry :clap:

rob
15-02-2006, 11:41 PM
First act in this position is too make 2 announcements.

1. Unfortunately WA will not be fielding a team in the interstate competition. This means it will be a 6 team, 5 round competition. This means there now will be a free weekend on March 12th so there is no clash with the Ballarat Begonia Weekender.

I understand that no-one from the CAWA committee was contacted with regards to organising a WA team. I gather that someone else was going to organise the WA team but then pulled out recently.

Libby
16-02-2006, 05:57 AM
I understand that no-one from the CAWA committee was contacted with regards to organising a WA team. I gather that someone else was going to organise the WA team but then pulled out recently.

What was personally disappointing for me (with regard to non-participation by WA) was I received an email from Alex - circulated generally to all the state organisers - written at 3:38pm on 7/2. WA (Haydn Barber) responded and withdrew at 4:43pm on 7/2.

I don't know how much advance effort had gone into finding WA's team. I can only say that I had not even attempted to put together an ACT team as at 7/2. My first email to possible players went out at 8:51pm on 7/2.

I just found it disappointing that the state with the most to gain was the first to throw in the towel.

jase
16-02-2006, 01:56 PM
I just found it disappointing that the state with the most to gain was the first to throw in the towel.

My reaction was identical.
I was amazed to read Haydn Barber's email; I just can't believe they put so little effort in to an event for which they have so much to gain.

Oepty
16-02-2006, 02:21 PM
The individual, draw is up, although not quite complete. It is available at http://www.ausnetchess.org/2006/interstateind.htm
The lists of teams are up, apart from queensland, at http://www.ausnetchess.org/entrants.htm
Scott Colliver

Oepty
16-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Libby, Rob, Jason. I have just exchanged emails with Alex. Alex and Alan have confirmed what I had thought, WA did not pull out of the competition until yesterday afternoon (15/2). They were trying to get a team together until then, but sadly failed.
Scott Colliver
Chesschat Liason Officer

rob
16-02-2006, 06:45 PM
I understand that the interstate organisers were happy to arrange with someone not in CAWA to coordinate the WA team. (I note in an earlier message that this was also the situation in QLD).

I get the impression that the state organising body (CAWA) was ignored until the WA coordinator withdrew, then the organisers turned to CAWA to coordinate the team. If CAWA had been involved earlier there probably would be a WA team taking part.

bunta
17-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Hey chesschat people,

i decided a bit too late to join up for this tournament, is there a selection process involved in picking the NSW team? i hope i can get in the team, its played on a day when im free even with the HSC commitment, it would be simple to enter and play all i have to do is switch on my computer and play chess no travelling involved, this is why vincent is playing
so am i too late?

pax
17-02-2006, 03:24 PM
Hey chesschat people,

i decided a bit too late to join up for this tournament, is there a selection process involved in picking the NSW team? i hope i can get in the team, its played on a day when im free even with the HSC commitment, it would be simple to enter and play all i have to do is switch on my computer and play chess no travelling involved, this is why vincent is playing
so am i too late?

I think you are too late. The NSW team was announced earlier in this thread. You should email the NSW coordinator Michael Lip (nsw@ausnetchess.org), and express an interest in playing - that way if someone drops out you can be considered.

Otherwise, there is always the Open competition in Term 2.

Alan Shore
17-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Tasmania is playing and our team's been selected pending final acceptances.

Are we going to see the team posted?

I'm also going to see if I can locate the QLD team to post.


P.S. I'm on the disputes committee... so be good!

Libby
17-02-2006, 03:31 PM
Are we going to see the team posted?

I'm also going to see if I can locate the QLD team to post.


P.S. I'm on the disputes committee... so be good!

http://www.ausnetchess.org/2006/interstateind.htm for all the teams.

This old fishy is still awaiting your reponse :P

Alan Shore
17-02-2006, 03:52 PM
http://www.ausnetchess.org/2006/interstateind.htm for all the teams.

Hey, good find.. I suppose I should have known that. (Why Moulthun is only a reserve I'm kind of baffled.. unless that board order isn't finalised or something).


This old fishy is still awaiting your reponse :P

Have responded, D.O.F. ;)

Libby
17-02-2006, 07:21 PM
Hey, good find.. I suppose I should have known that. (Why Moulthun is only a reserve I'm kind of baffled.. unless that board order isn't finalised or something).

Moulthun doesn't want to play regularly (or can't) as I understand.

I've asked the organisers to clarify (and I believe they are) how Reserves get "popped in" to their team.

ie I think Junta might be a little startled on Sunday if Alex Jule morphs into Mouthun without notice. Likewise, an U18 reserve shouldn't be replacing an U12 player in the lineup to skew the balance of the teams. Can't imagine that substituting on B10 will give Moulthun or his opponent much satisfaction for example.

ACTJCL has been securing 1x U12 reserve, 1xU18 reserve and 1x girl reserve so that any substitutions required will keep our team at 5xU18, 4xU12 & 3x Girls.

Garvinator
19-02-2006, 06:11 PM
sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion, but i have a question that might be more relevant than this:eek: doesnt play actually start about right now?

Frank Walker
19-02-2006, 06:21 PM
games have started. looking through the eyes of a 7 day free trial person :)

Garvinator
19-02-2006, 06:56 PM
games have started. looking through the eyes of a 7 day free trial person :)
how does someone view these games on icc?

WhiteElephant
19-02-2006, 07:04 PM
how does someone view these games on icc?

Yeah I was wonderng that too. There seem to be handles set up like vic10 and vic11 but no vic1 and vic2. How do we know which handle is which player?

Edit: Aaah ok vic01 and vic 02 seem to work. I guess if I refer to the tourney web site it will have state players in order.

Garvinator
19-02-2006, 07:33 PM
Yeah I was wonderng that too. There seem to be handles set up like vic10 and vic11 but no vic1 and vic2. How do we know which handle is which player?

Edit: Aaah ok vic01 and vic 02 seem to work. I guess if I refer to the tourney web site it will have state players in order.
it does seem like that there is very little information on how to actually view the games etc on icc.

Frank Walker
19-02-2006, 07:51 PM
hehe act kids are discussing how they will tell there results to libby

dunwannapost
19-02-2006, 08:01 PM
NSW 9 - TAS 1
2 games tmr

jenni
19-02-2006, 08:08 PM
As far as I can see ACT won 10, with I assume 2 deferred, although I didn't think they were supposed to be. Andrew Brown did a bit of a lazarus act. :rolleyes:

raymondsongrock
19-02-2006, 09:27 PM
I know for a fact that the deletion was not requested due to the poster believing that the original post was untrue or unjustified. Therefore it is a fact that no retraction was intended.

Also as a general rule of thumb if someone deletes a post you cannot assume that they intend to retract that post. Just they prefer to not have it in the public space.

Are you going to retract your post, Mr Rincewind?

firegoat7
19-02-2006, 09:55 PM
Mate, this thread is better then home and away:doh:

cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
19-02-2006, 10:02 PM
If posting PM's is not on, then posting private emails seems way out of line.:wall: :wall:

It is out of line, unless there is consent from all parties involved.

Rincewind
19-02-2006, 10:05 PM
Maybe posters should think a bit before they put hurtful, emotional and perhaps inaccurate information in the public space.

Something for everyone to keep in mind.

Rincewind
19-02-2006, 10:06 PM
Are you going to retract your post, Mr Rincewind?

I can't see any reason to. Perhaps you would like to expalin why you believe I should.

eclectic
19-02-2006, 10:14 PM
I can't see any reason to. Perhaps you would like to expalin why you believe I should.

r/w don't converse with a possible troll

just be thankful not enough letter space available for the name to be

raymondsongrocksockpuppet

:owned: :owned: :owned:

pax
19-02-2006, 10:15 PM
NSW 9-1 TAS, 2 to play
VIC 7-2 SA, 3 to play
ACT 10-0 QLD, 2 to play

dunwannapost
19-02-2006, 10:26 PM
i think VIC won 10-2 against SA

klyall
19-02-2006, 10:27 PM
I presume this post won't also be erased.

There are some games outstanding for Victoria. Final results will be available Thursday night.

pax
19-02-2006, 10:34 PM
Results so far are here:
http://www.ausnetchess.org/2006/interstateind.htm

Games can also be viewed from that page.

firegoat7
19-02-2006, 10:38 PM
i think VIC won 10-2 against SA

as it should....damn croweaters can't play chess:owned:

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2006, 03:05 AM
NSW 9-1 TAS, 2 to play

I watched some games from this match in person tonight. Four of them were being played from one house.

Tasmania is quite outclassed by the stronger teams in this comp and I've advised some of those involved here that any point we get should be prized! That said, I thought it was going to be 8-2 not 9-1 but you can never assume a junior who has reached a won pawn ending will know how to win it.

Libby
20-02-2006, 06:10 AM
It is out of line, unless there is consent from all parties involved.

Can't be 100% clear on what was posted - and then deleted - but I'd go to bat for someone when a misleading set of information has been posted and accepted & supported by a number of people here.

Info that may not "quote" an email but is suggestive of what was or wasn't included in an email.

And then the "accused" may not use the real text to defend themselves? :doh:

Anyway, congrats to all the state organisers for getting their teams ready for this first event. I'm sure the occasional bit of info has gone astray and the occasional process has not worked quite as well as we hoped but everyone is new to this and, as always, doing their best. That's the assumption I'll jump to.

Mirabelle Guo will be taking over from me as the ACT Coordinator after our meeting yesterday. No huffs involved, I'm just very busy running our Interschool Competitions and trying to avoid giving you too much ammunition :eek: by stuffing up arrangements for the next Aus Schools & Aus Juniors.

Final, big congrats to Alan & Alex for putting this all together. The ACT kids really enjoyed last night (not just on the scoreboard :owned: ) and the success of the team format was pretty obvious!

Libby
20-02-2006, 06:17 AM
As far as I can see ACT won 10, with I assume 2 deferred, although I didn't think they were supposed to be. Andrew Brown did a bit of a lazarus act. :rolleyes:

I wasn't aware that any of our games were being postponed (except the possibility of Emma's which looks to have been played).

Maybe there was some confusion at one end? I'd follow it up but I've actually managed to resign from a job - actually 2 jobs - at the meeting :clap: First time for everything :rolleyes:

Rincewind
20-02-2006, 07:07 AM
Can't be 100% clear on what was posted - and then deleted - but I'd go to bat for someone when a misleading set of information has been posted and accepted & supported by a number of people here.

Info that may not "quote" an email but is suggestive of what was or wasn't included in an email.

And then the "accused" may not use the real text to defend themselves? :doh:

This may be off topic in this thread here. However the text of the emails received were not necessary and simply stating that a reply was received at this time and a general idea of what was said would have been sufficient. The most important thing was the text of the messages Kerry sent which she could have posted without issue.

dunwannapost
20-02-2006, 08:04 PM
i give up

NSW won 11-1

well done Tassie, there were a few really tough games there

Rincewind
20-02-2006, 08:20 PM
whats wrong with my html??

I don't think html tags are supported in posts in that way.

Edit: If they where you are probably missing something to declare the <table> and leading <tr> and trailing </tr> and </table> tags.

ElevatorEscapee
20-02-2006, 08:29 PM
lol Rincewind, I think dunwanna was just after coding tips to get his/her html table lined up properly. ;)

Dun, please try:


<table>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center"><b>Board:</b></td>
<td width="132"><b>NSW Player:</b></td>
<td width="83">
<p align="center"><b>Result</b></td>
<td width="174"><b>TAS Player:</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="132">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="83">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="174">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">1</td>
<td width="132">Ronald Yu</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>Thomas Hendrey</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">2</td>
<td width="132"><b>Vincent Suttor</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174">Alastair Dyer</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">3</td>
<td width="132">James Cronan</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>Suraj Dutt</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">4</td>
<td width="132"><b>Justin Huang</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174">Mark Ferris</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">5</td>
<td width="132">Blair Mandla</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>Vincent Horton</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">6</td>
<td width="132"><b>Deborah Ng</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174">Charlie Smith</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">7</td>
<td width="132">Sarah Behne-Smith</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>James Briant</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">8</td>
<td width="132"><b>John McMahon</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174">Max Rintoul</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">9</td>
<td width="132">Joshua Lau</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>Megan Briant</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">10</td>
<td width="132"><b>Jordan Morris</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">0 - 1</td>
<td width="174">Nina Horton</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">11</td>
<td width="132">Eric Shi</td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174"><b>Joanna Ferris</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="102" align="center">12</td>
<td width="132"><b>Emma Storey</b></td>
<td width="83" align="center">1 - 0</td>
<td width="174">Mikalha George</td>
</tr>
<table>


Hope that helps! :D

Rincewind
20-02-2006, 08:33 PM
lol Rincewind, I think dunwanna was just after coding tips to get his/her html table lined up properly. ;)

I thought that too which is why I did some testing and updated my reply.

In that case one might also need to put the html tags themselves in <> brackets instead of square brackets (which is what made me think that they might have been trying to use HTML tags in a BB post).

cheers

pax
21-02-2006, 05:22 PM
Results, games and draws can now be found here:
http://ausnetchess.org/2006/results/results_view.php

Player draws for future rounds are, obviously, provisional, but I believe the team draws are correct.

This page is not yet linked from the front page of the site, but should be by tonight.

Garvinator
27-02-2006, 04:25 PM
Looking at the website, well done to SA and ACT who were able to get their second round match completed ON THE SCHEDULED NIGHT :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

shaun
27-02-2006, 05:13 PM
I think the ACT has adopted a somewhat suprising policy in this regard. If a player cannot make it on Sunday night they are replaced by something called a "reserve". A truly novel solution!

jenni
27-02-2006, 05:21 PM
I think the ACT has adopted a somewhat suprising policy in this regard. If a player cannot make it on Sunday night they are replaced by something called a "reserve". A truly novel solution!

However ACT did manage to play with all 12 members of their standard team last night. I think it is next week that the dreaded reserve makes an appearance. :eek:

Libby
27-02-2006, 05:40 PM
However ACT did managed to play with all 12 members of their standard team last night. I think it is next week that the dreaded reserve makes an appearance. :eek:

Yep, we really trawled the depths to find the reserve too ;)

Somewhat novel ACT policy comes from what's known (to me) as "Libby's lazy guide to chess (and other) administration." Generally involves looking for a solution which will require least intervention, least general running around and least likelihood to grow into severe pain-in-the-arse-itis.

We didn't really promote the idea of rescheduling games - I looked for people who could play on Sunday. Probably a very irresponsible and unfair action as judged elsewhere but I'll be up front in admitting my vested interest was to find a way we could compete with the least "mucking about" for myself and other organisers.

Besides which - we got lucky. Mostly they said "yes."

Libby
27-02-2006, 05:43 PM
Looking at the website, well done to SA and ACT who were able to get their second round match completed ON THE SCHEDULED NIGHT :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Not to mention - well done ACT :clap: ('cos we're winning ;) )

Sorry - had to put that in. Don't worry, I'm well aware it's only 2 rounds :P

pax
27-02-2006, 05:54 PM
Sorry - had to put that in. Don't worry, I'm well aware it's only 2 rounds :P

Not to mention that NSW ominously thrashed Victoria. Looks like next week is the big matchup.

Libby
27-02-2006, 06:06 PM
Not to mention that NSW ominously thrashed Victoria. Looks like next week is the big matchup.

Yep. We'll have to get the weight of our 307 700 population behind the team. Just a lazy 6.5 million fewer people to draw our players from :owned:

jenni
27-02-2006, 07:24 PM
Not to mention that NSW ominously thrashed Victoria. Looks like next week is the big matchup.

It's going to be very interesting - I shall be glued to my computer. :D

My feeling is NSW will do better on the higher boards, ACT on the lower boards but what the exact outcome will be who knows. I think on current performance it will be the deciding match. If it splits pretty evenly or maybe even 7-5 it could still make the last matches significant.

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2006, 09:12 PM
3.5/10 for Tassie vs Qld so far is not too bad a score. They outrated us on most boards and while Thomas Hendrey outrates Alexandra Jule marginally, her recent form has been so good that I did not expect him to beat her - but he did!

Alas the game links appear to be down presently together with much of the official site.

dunwannapost
27-02-2006, 10:28 PM
Only 8 games will be played at the scheduled time (4 have been rearranged).

We decided that since this is the big game, we should make every effort to get the top team from each state together.

Alana
28-02-2006, 04:11 PM
My interpretation of this is that if any parent (or junior), wants info, or wishes to pass on an idea or make a complaint, but is a bit intimidated by the chess hierarachy, then they can contact me. I will then point them in the right direction for info, explain a situation, or pass on their ideas/complaints in an anonymous way if desired.

Thanks and good job, Jenni! What would we do without you? :eek: :owned: :hand: :D :D :P :) ;) :clap: :clap:

Alana
28-02-2006, 04:19 PM
Hi

Just letting everyone know that I am absolutely LOVING this tournament so far. It is great experience for all of us and I congratulate everyone who helped put it together. :clap: :clap: :clap: :eh:

jenni
28-02-2006, 04:30 PM
Hi

Just letting everyone know that I am absolutely LOVING this tournament so far. It is great experience for all of us and I congratulate everyone who helped put it together. :clap: :clap: :clap: :eh:
Your enthusiasm is always delightful Alana - I wish more of the girls were like you. :)

Libby
28-02-2006, 07:27 PM
Your enthusiasm is always delightful Alana - I wish more of the girls were like you. :)

act12 makes an appearance :D I'll have to be good now Alana - you'll take all my fun away ;)

jenni
28-02-2006, 08:22 PM
act12 makes an appearance :D I'll have to be good now Alana - you'll take all my fun away ;)

It's a worry isn't it. I was planning to trot out lecture 101 when I next see her. (The one about how people her age don't belong here....)

Alana
01-03-2006, 03:59 PM
It's a worry isn't it. I was planning to trot out lecture 101 when I next see her. (The one about how people her age don't belong here....)

ah... I just think that the people who are actually PLAYING the tournament should get a say... :P

jenni
01-03-2006, 04:11 PM
ah... I just think that the people who are actually PLAYING the tournament should get a say... :P

Its not this thread that is the problem but other ones you might stray into - a bit like throwing Red Riding Hood to the wolves.

Alana
01-03-2006, 04:26 PM
Its not this thread that is the problem but other ones you might stray into - a bit like throwing Red Riding Hood to the wolves.

don't worry... i'll behave :D :uhoh:

Garvinator
01-03-2006, 04:33 PM
don't worry... i'll behave :D :uhoh:
it isnt you that we are worried about;)

Alana
01-03-2006, 04:46 PM
it isnt you that we are worried about;)

REALLY???

Well... I am happy. By the way... I can't wait for that lecture :lol: Jenni :eh: :doh: :eek: :lol:

Libby
08-03-2006, 09:59 AM
Crosstable
Team Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score
1 NSW 9.5 4 11 0 0 24.5
2 VIC 2.5 0 9.5 9 0 21
3 ACT 6 0 0 10.5 11 27.5
4 TAS 1 1.5 0 0 5.5 8
5 SA 0 3 1.5 0 6 10.5
6 QLD 0 0 1 6.5 6 13.5

Nothing much on chesschat today, just thought I'd mention ... :owned:

(OK, OK unseemly chest-thumping :uhoh: )

jenni
08-03-2006, 01:46 PM
Ever heard of hubris LIbby? Now we'll probably be beaten by Tasmania, just so the gods can put us in our place. :uhoh:

Alana
08-03-2006, 02:38 PM
Ever heard of hubris LIbby? Now we'll probably be beaten by Tasmania, just so the gods can put us in our place. :uhoh:
NOOOOO this can't be happening :(

Libby
08-03-2006, 02:54 PM
Ever heard of hubris LIbby? Now we'll probably be beaten by Tasmania, just so the gods can put us in our place. :uhoh:

Now that's a pessimist for you!

Actually just hoping to provoke a little bit of this so-called discussion about the event. Only seems to happen if there's some fightin' goin' on (not the over-the-board variety :lol: )

ursogr8
08-03-2006, 02:58 PM
Now that's a pessimist for you!

Actually just hoping to provoke a little bit of this so-called discussion about the event. Only seems to happen if there's some fightin' goin' on (not the over-the-board variety :lol: )

You can of course get good publicity by invoking discussion about the competitive indicies of the pairiings. ;) :cool:

starter

Libby
08-03-2006, 03:03 PM
You can of course get good publicity by invoking discussion about the competitive indicies of the pairiings. ;) :cool:

starter

Go on then - dare you :lol:

Might, potentially, be an interesting statistic when married with the actual round-by-round results.

(Libby ducks for cover as all opponents of CI related comment open fire ...)

pax
08-03-2006, 03:37 PM
The ACT-VIC match will still be pretty critical. NSW disposed of VIC with a pretty big margin - wonder if ACT can do the same?!?

jenni
08-03-2006, 03:59 PM
The ACT-VIC match will still be pretty critical. NSW disposed of VIC with a pretty big margin - wonder if ACT can do the same?!?
As I said in an earlier post a 6-6 split or even a 7-5 in the ACT - NSW match still leaves it wide open. Obviously Vic is still a tough match for us, but NSW have to do well against both QLD and SA, so I think it is one of those "too close to call" scenarios at the moment and we should be looking for an exciting finish. Gareth plays Vince tonight, but as he has Uni from 11am to 7pm today with only a 1 hour break (which was filled by rushing back to Radford College to coach chess), I think he might be just a little tired. :)

jenni
08-03-2006, 07:04 PM
Gareth plays Vince tonight,

or maybe not :) They were supposed to play at 9 on Monday and Vincent was tired, so they made it 8 tonight, but Gareth was tired - now they are playing 7 on Monday and hopefully get it out the way. :wall:

Garvinator
08-03-2006, 09:19 PM
or maybe not :) They were supposed to play at 9 on Monday and Vincent was tired, so they made it 8 tonight, but Gareth was tired - now they are playing 7 on Monday and hopefully get it out the way. :wall:
and exactly when will the organisers say enough is enough? This is why you either play on the scheduled night, find a reserve or forfeit that board.

jenni
08-03-2006, 09:28 PM
and exactly when will the organisers say enough is enough? This is why you either play on the scheduled night, find a reserve or forfeit that board.

I know it is a bit of a pain, but both boys are trying to be nice to each other. Gareth was available to play on the Sunday night, but Vincent requested to change to the Monday at 7, which Gareth agreed to. Then on Friday he was notified of a Maths test that went from 6pm to 8pm, so asked Vince to move to 9pm, which was agreed to. When Gareth logged on Vince said he was tired and how about Wednesday, which Gareth agreed to. Then of course we had today and another shift.

I don't have a huge problem with it - I mean we are not playing for sheep stations and part of the rationale is to foster chess and make it enjoyable. If the kids are prepared to negotiate with each other and reschedule I think it is better than being overly rules oriented. Personally I would prefer to see them all play on Sunday night and forfeit if the reserve can't play, because the Sunday night games have more atmosphere, but this works as well.

Carl Gorka
08-03-2006, 10:05 PM
part of the rationale is to foster chess

I too thought this was part of the rationale of the project which was why I agreed to help originally. But seeing that the players are mostly well known, I would say that chess is not being fostered, but rather another event has been created for the elite juniors who already play enough chess. If this was the original intention then it was a misunderstanding on my part.....

Libby
09-03-2006, 06:05 AM
I too thought this was part of the rationale of the project which was why I agreed to help originally. But seeing that the players are mostly well known, I would say that chess is not being fostered, but rather another event has been created for the elite juniors who already play enough chess. If this was the original intention then it was a misunderstanding on my part.....

I think that's an unfair comment given this is only one of four competitions scheduled to run this year. Fair enough if it was the only one ...

The competition scheduled for Term 2 is open to all, as is the Term 4 competition. I'm not sure if the school teams event is intended for a broad base or only for the top qualifying team in each division but it does seem to me there are a mix of competitions to cater to all levels.

You could argue that they should have started with an "all-in" event but better (I think) to keep the numbers more manageable as people trial a concept.

Maybe, as the team concept seems so popular with the children who are actually participating, it could expand over time to include a second or third division where states field lower rated, or unrated, players?

Also, I'd like to see it be a Sunday night competition. The rescheduling does detract from the atmosphere and it seems that there are a group of "repeat offenders" ie children who really don't seem to be available at all on a Sunday night. It's all within the rules, and all trying to cater to everyone, but I do wonder why we were supposed to come up with reserves as it seems no-one wants to use them?

It was "whispered" the ACT was interested in "stacking" our team last Sunday. The inclusion of Gareth against NSW was certainly a happy bonus for us but I had known from the start that we would probably require a reserve on that weekend as Sherab had a clash with the ACT Softball Championships. So we had looked for a reserve, rather than a reschedule.

I'm not trying to have a go at people who are all within the rules as the comp currently runs, just expressing my preference about how I would rather see it run.

jenni
09-03-2006, 09:19 AM
I too thought this was part of the rationale of the project which was why I agreed to help originally. But seeing that the players are mostly well known, I would say that chess is not being fostered, but rather another event has been created for the elite juniors who already play enough chess. If this was the original intention then it was a misunderstanding on my part.....

One of the reasons Gareth didn't go into the team, (apart from not liking to play long games on ICC), was because he thought it was more appropriate for the next level of players - kids whose parents perhaps are not interested in travelling etc. He agreed to be a reserve pretty much because he was asked to help out for one round (two at most).

I think as soon as you have a "state' competition the natural competitiveness of chess people kicks in and states are going to try and field their best teams. I would still hope that a friendly atmosphere prevails and winning at all costs doesn't become the most important thing.

Once the other comps kick in, I would think you would see fewer of the "elite" kids playing - certainly my kids have no intention of playing.

The state comps have still fulfilled some of the aims of fostering chess - e.g. there are numerous kids playing in the teams, including strong states like NSW, who have never played outside their state.

Ian Rout
09-03-2006, 09:46 AM
Surely giving players a chance to represent their State contributes to fostering the game. Maybe there could also be an U/1400 competition (or some other limit) to allow more players to be involved, though there is the question of whether the smaller states could run to two teams given that WA couldn't even manage one.

pax
09-03-2006, 09:57 AM
There are really a lot of unrated and low-rated players participating, and this can only be good for the game. I remember being very excited as a junior many years ago to be representing the state in 'telechess' matches (you think this thing is hard logistically? Telechess was a nightmare).

I agree somewhat that an Open event might have been better first up, but having the matches first creates a nucleus of players who might be excited about the concept. Also, there is some sense in having the free event first.

Oepty
09-03-2006, 11:12 AM
I would just like to agree with what Jenni, Libby, Ian and pax said. I believe there are players in the SA team would not be able to in comptetions interstate due to finanacial considerations.
Secondly this competition is generating excitement amongest the players. I really noticed this on Tuesday night when I sat down with some of juniors. It was a topic of discussion and excitement.
I think there is a feeling amongest the organisers it should be a Sunday only competition in future, although this is not an announcement to that fact.
I think the interschool competition is open to all schools, but I am not 100% sure of this. I will try and find out.
Scott

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 01:26 PM
I think that's an unfair comment given this is only one of four competitions scheduled to run this year. Fair enough if it was the only one ...



Yes. I do think an open should have been held first. FWIW I think the organisers have all done a great job of creating this tournament especially considering the short time that you all had in the end, and the criteria you had to go on....ie a state championship. However, all I see is elite players, and all the discussion I see about this is heading towards an even more elitist state of affairs. Initially this was seen as a trial year, but already there is ACF sanctioning and adult events are in the pipeline. How is this going to help bring kids into this arena that don't usually have that much chance to play tournaments....especially in the stronger states?

I will continue to encourage kids at schools that I coach at to enter this event this year. I am beginning to have doubts for the long term, though:(

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 01:30 PM
I think as soon as you have a "state' competition the natural competitiveness of chess people kicks in and states are going to try and field their best teams. I would still hope that a friendly atmosphere prevails and winning at all costs doesn't become the most important thing.



I agree that a state competition encourages natural competetiveness, and it is only natural therefore that state organisers do their best to get the strongest teams. And I commend the organisers for doing just that...they've all done a great job. I was merely stating that the initial aims of this project didn't appear to me to be this, but rather to encourage (foster, if you prefer) a number of inexperienced players to join the playing arena. I don't think this initial tournament has been successful at doing this.

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 01:33 PM
Surely giving players a chance to represent their State contributes to fostering the game.

Does it? To me it seems that a number of players who already have a lot of chances to play chess are being given another. How exactly does this foster the game?

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 01:37 PM
I would just like to agree with what Jenni, Libby, Ian and pax said. I believe there are players in the SA team would not be able to in comptetions interstate due to finanacial considerations.


There aren't too many in the Vic, NSW or ACT teams. Perhaps the organisers could consider introducing a "country" only championships?

pax
09-03-2006, 02:08 PM
Yes. I do think an open should have been held first. FWIW I think the organisers have all done a great job of creating this tournament especially considering the short time that you all had in the end, and the criteria you had to go on....ie a state championship. However, all I see is elite players, and all the discussion I see about this is heading towards an even more elitist state of affairs. Initially this was seen as a trial year, but already there is ACF sanctioning and adult events are in the pipeline. How is this going to help bring kids into this arena that don't usually have that much chance to play tournaments....especially in the stronger states?

I will continue to encourage kids at schools that I coach at to enter this event this year. I am beginning to have doubts for the long term, though:(

Bearing in mind that there will be a totally open event next term, what exactly is missing in your opinion?

A country championship is one idea, albeit one that would require lots of work in terms of getting enough players involved.

Surely having events for Adults and elite juniors doesn't do any harm to the objective of getting more juniors involved at the rank-and-file level?

jenni
09-03-2006, 02:29 PM
There aren't too many in the Vic, NSW or ACT teams. Perhaps the organisers could consider introducing a "country" only championships?

In mitigation for the ACT team - we have a huge number of kids who have played interstate relative to other states.

After reading your initial post, I was feeling a bit guilty (not that I have anything at all to do with choosing the ACT team, but I just have a natural propensity to feel guilty).

Obviously all the ACT kids in our team have played interstate, some of them only at the Aus Juniors, some at weekenders or even overseas.

The difference though is we constantly push anyone in the ACT who shows even a whiff of enthusiasm to take themselves interstate and extend their experience. e.g we had over 30 kids play at the Aus juniors this year - if Vic and NSW had the same level of participation, they would have had to have about 400 kids each.

So although it looks like we have put in all very experienced kids (and I suppose we have), it is also a function that many more of the ACT kids do travel.

I just think that no-one is going to put in beginner players for a state competition - everyone is going to put in the best they have. Once we move to the other formats, the ability to encourage less experienced kids to partipate will exist.

However I think in the first few years the idea should be to take on criticism like this and to try and design formats that alleviate the criticism. Maybe we don't need a state comp at all, or maybe there should be different divisions. I am sure the organisers are receptive to constructive criticism.

Garvinator
09-03-2006, 02:35 PM
I just think that no-one is going to put in beginner players for a state competition - everyone is going to put in the best they have. Once we move to the other formats, the ability to encourage less experienced kids to partipate will exist.
While caq didnt put beginners in, CAQ did select the first ones who said yes. CAQ could have gone for a stronger team (ratings wise) but CAQ wanted to reward enthusiasm and those who had said that they wanted to play first.

Therefore CAQ didnt select our 'strongest' team as our first priority.

Oepty
09-03-2006, 02:42 PM
There aren't too many in the Vic, NSW or ACT teams. Perhaps the organisers could consider introducing a "country" only championships?

I haven't really looked at the other teams to see whether applies to them, and I was a selector of the SA team. I tried to choose the best 12 players, and it just so happened that it ended up that way.
As far as a country only championships, I will try and remember to speak to Alan or Alex about that idea next week
Scott

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 06:34 PM
Bearing in mind that there will be a totally open event next term, what exactly is missing in your opinion?

A country championship is one idea, albeit one that would require lots of work in terms of getting enough players involved.

Surely having events for Adults and elite juniors doesn't do any harm to the objective of getting more juniors involved at the rank-and-file level?

I believe that involving elite juniors and adults can put off certain juniors with little experience, and little confidence. Don't forget, these kids will be alone and not in the company of their schoolmates to give them encouragement. I don't think there is any problem with state championships or adult events. But you should start off as you intend to continue...ie. play an open first to encourage kids to get involved. Elite/closed championship events should be a culmination, not an introduction.

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 06:37 PM
After reading your initial post, I was feeling a bit guilty (not that I have anything at all to do with choosing the ACT team, but I just have a natural propensity to feel guilty).



Hey Jenni, don't feel guilty. I am not trying to be personal. In fact, as I've said before, I think the organisers at all levels have done a great job of getting this tournament together. I just think that this event is not the best way of promoting greater participation in chess at all levels, in all areas, of all states.

Libby
09-03-2006, 06:40 PM
I haven't really looked at the other teams to see whether applies to them, and I was a selector of the SA team. I tried to choose the best 12 players, and it just so happened that it ended up that way.
As far as a country only championships, I will try and remember to speak to Alan or Alex about that idea next week
Scott

The "country" concept is quite a sound one. It doesn't really apply for the ACT (unless we truly annex Queanbeyan ;) ) but it exists in many sports where national carnivals often include NSW and NSW Country, Vic and Vic Country for example.

My own experience is that this first up event provides a really good vehicle to establish & promote the competition. The state team event is not too big for first-time organisers to handle - at least you can work out what the operational difficulties are before your swamped by numbers. It is generating discussion amongst the players and a sense of "state pride" in your community - it's also quite marketable to the local media (at least whilst we're winning :owned: ).

And every time I write up our results in our weekly bulletin I can take the opportunity to promote the event to the whole group for Term 2.

I don't think it's dissimilar to what I'm currently doing at my school club. We are getting ready for the ACT Girls Primary Championship. I will have several teams. One team is quite good and should qualify for the final and will most likely play off for the ASTC spot which they may or may not win (we're a little younger and about 2000 ratings points behind last year :eek: ) But having one really good team has never discouraged participation by others. And we let anyone play who wants to - and that really does trawl very low on the talent scale. I promote & publicise the achievements of every child from our school who participates in ACTJCL events. New players are inspired by what is achieved by others. Big achievements, little achievements, personal bests etc - it gives the players something to aspire to.

I don't think there's anything wrong with elite events, there's just something wrong with that being your whole focus.

And we've had so much twaddle over selections for this event anyway I can only wonder what assertions could have been made if the selection criteria been "enthusiasm" or "development opportunity." It was much less of a nightmare to work down a rating list, less subjective and less open to broadsides from the disgruntled ones who miss out. But - with the will of others - the concept could easily, and interestingly, be modified with ideas like a cap on the total team rating, or a requirement to field a certain number of players under a paticular rating, or even just running multiple divisions.

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 06:53 PM
And we've had so much twaddle over selections for this event anyway I can only wonder what assertions could have been made if the selection criteria been "enthusiasm" or "development opportunity." It was much less of a nightmare to work down a rating list, less subjective and less open to broadsides from the disgruntled ones who miss out. But - with the will of others - the concept could easily, and interestingly, be modified with ideas like a cap on the total team rating, or a requirement to field a certain number of players under a paticular rating, or even just running multiple divisions.

Perhaps next year states could create teams based on players performances in open events run by the site. This would encourage strong players to participate, but give less experienced players a feeling that they at least have a chance to qualify for their state team.

Libby
09-03-2006, 07:04 PM
Perhaps next year states could create teams based on players performances in open events run by the site. This would encourage strong players to participate, but give less experienced players a feeling that they at least have a chance to qualify for their state team.

Yes, I had a similar thought.

I think the scheduling makes sense this year (for the reasons I suggested before - like, nobody knew what they were doing :doh:) but there's no reason why you couldn't switch T1 & T2 events next year and make your mass participation event the way to qualify for your state team. You could even make it the way to qualify for multiple state teams with players allocated according to performance to the Div 1 or Div 2 team etc.

I also think you needed an established group to play this first ever event. Otherwise in 2006, you'd be trying to encourage marginal or unknown players into a brand new event at a time in the year where many haven't even decided if they plan to turn up to chess club yet. I think the mass participation wouldn't have achieved the "mass" hoped for so early on with a new concept.

Next year, if all goes well, the concept will be well established and hopefully promoted so that players finish 2006 (and the Juniors in Canberra :owned: ) looking forward to getting back online for the first 2007 competition.

pax
09-03-2006, 07:10 PM
While caq didnt put beginners in, CAQ did select the first ones who said yes. CAQ could have gone for a stronger team (ratings wise) but CAQ wanted to reward enthusiasm and those who had said that they wanted to play first.

Therefore CAQ didnt select our 'strongest' team as our first priority.

Hmm, this sounds like a reinterpretation of history.

From Graeme Gardiner's mailout, it sounded more like it was 'first in best dressed' simply because organising the team had been left a little late, rather than any CAQ policy decision.



Entries close next Tuesday 14 February and play starts on Sunday 19 February - six rounds over six weeks.

We need a Queensland team in a hurry - five under 18s, four under 12s and three girls, plus a couple of reserves. If you'd like to play, please let Ian Murray know immediately. With the short time available, the team will be selected pretty much on a first-come first-served basis.

Libby
09-03-2006, 07:48 PM
From Graeme Gardiner's mailout, it sounded more like it was 'first in best dressed' simply because organising the team had been left a little late, rather than any CAQ policy decision.

What's more, it's a selection process that has little to do with "enthusiasm" and more to do with access to information.

If you're "in-the-know" then you will hear before others have even hit their mailbox. You even get the chance to say "yes" as you meet someone in the corridor, or at the meeting etc.

Selecting for "enthusiasm" is a bit of an intangible. We are often floundering around with the concept when we select our Development Squad or invites to our GM weekends. Personal contact with a player creates a bias, good or bad, so we put most of our weight on their level of participation. How often we see them, and in what sort of events & activities is a criteria we can use to cull a whole lot of names before we even worry about how many points they score and if they conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike fashion.

Carl Gorka
09-03-2006, 10:58 PM
Yes, I had a similar thought.

I think the scheduling makes sense this year (for the reasons I suggested before - like, nobody knew what they were doing :doh:) but there's no reason why you couldn't switch T1 & T2 events next year and make your mass participation event the way to qualify for your state team. You could even make it the way to qualify for multiple state teams with players allocated according to performance to the Div 1 or Div 2 team etc.

I also think you needed an established group to play this first ever event. Otherwise in 2006, you'd be trying to encourage marginal or unknown players into a brand new event at a time in the year where many haven't even decided if they plan to turn up to chess club yet. I think the mass participation wouldn't have achieved the "mass" hoped for so early on with a new concept.




I'm sure there are more than one way to go about this. Hopefully, the way that was decided will produce the desired results. Have you any idea what would deem a respectable turn out for the open to come?

Libby
10-03-2006, 06:04 AM
I'm sure there are more than one way to go about this. Hopefully, the way that was decided will produce the desired results. Have you any idea what would deem a respectable turn out for the open to come?

Nope - don't know what the projected (or hoped for) figures are.

If the competition is well run (as it appears to be) then the success or otherwise will be driven by demand (who knows with kids these days - gets out the walking stick :lol: ) and some of that demand will only be generated by good promotion at a local level.

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 09:29 PM
The Organisers, Alan Goldsmith and Alex Saint have decided that there will be no takebacks for future rounds and events.

- Alex Saint (through nswrep)

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 09:58 PM
The final round of the NSW-ACT match was played tonight, resulting in a win to NSW.

Final Score: NSW 6 - ACT 6

ElevatorEscapee
13-03-2006, 10:14 PM
The Organisers, Alan Goldsmith and Alex Saint have decided that there will be no takebacks for future rounds and events.

- Alex Saint (through nswrep)

What about accepting "kickbacks"? I heard the AWB is looking for new customers... ;)

Garvinator
13-03-2006, 10:33 PM
What about accepting "kickbacks"? I heard the AWB is looking for new customers... ;)
is it in a trust account?

Libby
23-03-2006, 07:21 AM
Crosstable
Team Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score
1 NSW 9.5 6 11 0 10 36.5
2 VIC 2.5 3 10.5 9 0 25
3 ACT 6 8 0 10.5 11 35.5
4 TAS 1 1.5 0 1.5 5.5 9.5
5 SA 0 3 1.5 10.5 6 21
6 QLD 2 0 1 6.5 6 15.5

Just to prove I don't just post 'cos we're winning (although we do have a game to play it won't get us ahead even if we do win but does make for an exciting final round!)

Congrats to the team that put everything together and to all the state organisers (that's not gratuitous self-congratulation Baz, as I'm not any of those :cool: ).

I think we have all learned some things for next time - as we'd expect to - but overall it seems to have a great comp to be a part of and we will be encouraging our ACT juniors to participate in the "open" competition next term.

Rincewind
23-03-2006, 08:21 AM
Come on the Blues!

pax
23-03-2006, 08:59 AM
It's right down to the wire, but the ACT looks to be in the box seat. SA should take a few points off NSW, and ACT really shouldn't drop any to TAS. But you never know in this game... One mouse slip and it could all turn around.

jenni
23-03-2006, 09:52 AM
Down to the wire is right. Anyone watch Junta's game against Chris Wallis? My nerves were shot by the end of that game :) The NSW kids were asking James Obst to throw his game against Ronald so they could win, somehow I don't think James was going to co-operate. :owned:

shaun
23-03-2006, 10:04 AM
The NSW kids were asking James Obst to throw his game against Ronald so they could win, somehow I don't think James was going to co-operate. :owned:

I'm shocked. Hopefully the NSWCA/NSWJCL will be suspending players quick smart.

jenni
23-03-2006, 10:14 AM
I'm shocked. Hopefully the NSWCA/NSWJCL will be suspending players quick smart.
:lol: :lol:

four four two
23-03-2006, 10:15 AM
Jenni,is that another can of worms opening?:hmm:

Arent you meant to show evidence before making such claims?...for that is the reason for the modification of the Ballarat thread split.:hmm:

arosar
23-03-2006, 10:19 AM
All that was most likely to be in jest. These are well educated and reasonable young juniors.

AR

shaun
23-03-2006, 10:24 AM
All that was most likely to be in jest. These are well educated and reasonable young juniors.

AR

But only a formally constituted hearing, with rules of evidence and due process can determine this.

jenni
23-03-2006, 11:24 AM
Of course it was joking. :lol: These are nice kids and no-one would dream of making it as a serious suggestion. Also they are intelligent and would make it as a private suggestion not an open one on channel 66 where people like me lurk listening to their conversations.

Shaun of course is stirring to prove a point...

shaun
23-03-2006, 11:26 AM
Of course it was joking. :lol: These are nice kids and no-one would dream of making it as a serious suggestion. Also they are intelligent and would make it as a private suggestion not an open one on channel 66 where people like me lurk listening to their conversations.

Shaun of course is stirring to prove a point...

Correct.

Garvinator
23-03-2006, 01:25 PM
joking claims of throwing games and asking other competitors to throw games in an acf approved event, yes it is really being taken seriously, not :evil:

jenni
23-03-2006, 03:09 PM
No teenager takes anything seriously - it is part of the culture (or at least not unless they are terribly pompous and you don't get too many of those at that age.)

arosar
23-03-2006, 03:44 PM
What is your handle on ICC jenni dearest?

AR

jenni
23-03-2006, 10:39 PM
What is your handle on ICC jenni dearest?

AR
:cool:

Carl Gorka
26-03-2006, 09:01 PM
I have tried to get some players to join the open tournament starting in term 2. I was under the impression that this event was free to join, but it says on the webpage that it costs $20. Is this correct?

AES
26-03-2006, 09:04 PM
Yes Carl it is $20. We do need to pay for prizes, money needs to go back into the competition, there are a lot of costs. Alan and I need to recover costs etc.

With that , you get 2 months free ICC, great prizes for all age groups and strengths etc. and lots of other fun stuff.

Cheers,
Alex

Carl Gorka
26-03-2006, 09:07 PM
Thanks for clarifying Alex. I shall inform them that I was mistaken.

AES
26-03-2006, 09:13 PM
Just a small note, we did originally advertise the tournament would be $10 (in post 1 of this thread) with the Interstate event being free but due to costs + good prizes/certificates we are getting etc we think that $20 is very reasonable and the free 2 months ICC is a big bonus.

Certainly it is our goal to keep these tourneys affordable for ALL players.

If anyone is wanting to play that thinks this is too expensive, we are happy to negotiate for that person/family.

We dont want any child to have a reason not to be part of these events.

This is for everyone.

Libby
27-03-2006, 07:04 PM
:) :) :) :D :clap: :owned: ;)

shaun
27-03-2006, 07:35 PM
:) :) :) :D :clap: :owned: ;)

A box of chocolates for the South Australians?

AES
27-03-2006, 07:38 PM
The organisers/players will be double checking the scores from ACT and NSW in particular and the announcement/confirmation will be made after Thursday's games when all games are complete.

Thanks
Alex Saint
Coordinator

BFG
28-03-2006, 10:44 AM
A box of chocolates for the South Australians?And some after dinner mints for the Queenslanders who took an extra point off NSW.

AES
30-03-2006, 02:18 PM
NSW and ACT scores confirmed.

dunwannapost
30-03-2006, 06:53 PM
Congratulations ACT, winners by 1.5 points!

Well done to all who played

Rincewind
30-03-2006, 07:12 PM
Congratulations ACT, winners by 1.5 points!

Well done to all who played

Ditto!

:clap:

AES
30-03-2006, 08:45 PM
final results up on www.ausnetchess.org

Congratulations to the ACT team-winners of the 2006 Australian Interstate Junior Internet Chess Championships

The team was (in board order):

Junta Ikeda
Kishore Sreetharan
Khoi Hoang
Sherab Guo-Yuthok
Andrew Brown
Yi Yuan
Justin Chow
Edward Xing
Emma Guo
Miona Ikeda
Kayleigh Smith
Alana Chibnall
Gareth Oliver (reserve)
Joshua Bishop (reserve)
Megan Setiabudi (reserve)

Thanks to the players, the state reps, coaches, parents, and the chess public. It was great to see so many people get behind this event.

More to come soon!

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2006, 11:50 AM
Well done ACT - fielded an excellent team and were worthy winners - it's great the competition was so competitive.

I always expected Tas to finish well behind the others but I'm pleased with how many points we did rack up - 10.5/60 is more than I expected when I saw the strength of some of the other teams.

Mischa
13-04-2006, 10:47 PM
I am confused..surprise surprise...
In my kids school newsletter there was this..."There is an internet chess competition being run by Kerry Lyall (mum of Eugene, Year 6). It is open to every junior chess player in Australia.

Mischa
13-04-2006, 10:48 PM
Is this the same internet comp??? or a different one?

jenni
14-04-2006, 10:51 AM
Is this the same internet comp??? or a different one?
Hi Rowena

The enthusiastic people in SA are running a series of competitions. The new one is open to any Junior and is an individual comp, rather than the one which just concluded, which was a state teams comp. Go to their web site and you can see what they are up to for the rest of the year.

Mischa
14-04-2006, 12:50 PM
thanks!

Libby
30-04-2006, 06:12 PM
Hi Alex

I was wondering about entries for the upcoming junior event.

We have pushed quite hard in the ACT. I was wondering if we had generated many entries?

One difficulty (for future reference) has been closing the event on the last Sunday of our school holidays. It has meant we couldn't do one last push through the schools (as they're not there! :) )

Libby

AES
02-05-2006, 12:04 PM
Hi Alex

I was wondering about entries for the upcoming junior event.

We have pushed quite hard in the ACT. I was wondering if we had generated many entries?

One difficulty (for future reference) has been closing the event on the last Sunday of our school holidays. It has meant we couldn't do one last push through the schools (as they're not there! :) )

Libby

Hi Libby,

Thanks for this. We have about 18 entries from the ACT i think. There are about 60 entries all up. Alan and I had hoped for more-perhaps 100.

As for pushing it through the schools, this is disappointing it worked out that way but i did inform your state rep about the dates and she didnt tell me of any problem with those dates. It make it a bit hard when we're not told! :owned:

Libby
02-05-2006, 06:26 PM
Hi Libby,

Thanks for this. We have about 18 entries from the ACT i think. There are about 60 entries all up. Alan and I had hoped for more-perhaps 100.

As for pushing it through the schools, this is disappointing it worked out that way but i did inform your state rep about the dates and she didnt tell me of any problem with those dates. It make it a bit hard when we're not told! :owned:

That's fine Alex. I think most of your entries (from the ACT) would come through our targeted marketing to our recipients of our email bulletin and the Development Squad no matter anyway.

We had sent out the info over several weeks and you probably needed to have a closing date in time to set up the draw etc for next weekend.

We will be able to push the interschool events through our own Interschool events this term. We kick off on 17 May. Will there be entry info & detail on the website by then? (it will make a difference to the way we "sell" the concept.)

Libby

Alana
04-08-2006, 04:23 PM
Why did Libby and Jenni's accounts get suspended? It seems Jenni's has for quite a while.

Basil
04-08-2006, 04:29 PM
Why did Libby and Jenni's accounts get suspended? It seems Jenni's has for quite a while.

Honestly? Really truly honestly?

Mischa's is also suspended. This is not a coincidence, Alana. It is a genetic predisposition to which you can look forward when you're older.

Its the equivalent of shouting a question at someone and then stomping down the corridor before waiting for an answer.

Alana
04-08-2006, 04:38 PM
That explains a lot... *confused look on face, staring absent-mindedly into space*

Basil
04-08-2006, 04:42 PM
Alana, all 3 people have asked that their accounts be suspended. They have done nothing wrong. It is a choice they have made by themselves.

Pax has pointed out that the three people could have just elected to *not* post. I agree entirely with him. Some of us wonder why users have to go to the dramatic effect of asking that their account be suspended.

It is this dramatic effect to which I was referring in my last post.

I should also point out [in case 442 arrives] that some men have also asked that their accounts be suspended.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2006, 08:15 PM
Why did Libby and Jenni's accounts get suspended?

Suspended at their own request.

Alana
07-08-2006, 04:42 PM
Crazy... why would they bother? Jenni normally posts the Belconnen Chess Club news up, and now they dont have anyone to, since Ian doesn't bother anymore for some reason. I would be happy to post them up myself. :)

dipset
17-12-2007, 05:36 PM
hi guys

i have read most of your thread replies in this thread. i see that you guys have tournements online which is very good for the chess community and i also saw that some of you are complaining that you have to pay on ICC to play chess. well what im offering to you guys is that you can play on chesscube if you want because they are a free site and they do host online tourneys for the ecf (english chess federation), aswell as an indian room where there are monthly tourneys for the indians. you can check it out and tell me what you think and if you do want to run a tourney via chesscube then talk to one of the moderators of the site.
the site url is www.chesscube.com
its just a suggestion for online tournements :)
or you can email

Basil
17-12-2007, 07:01 PM
i have read most of your thread replies in this thread
Yeah, right. The Aust Junior Champs thread.


i see that you guys have tournements online which is very good for the chess community and i also saw that some of you are complaining that you have to pay on ICC to play chess.
Huh?


well what im offering to you guys is that you can play on chesscube ...
Or you can play on my site: http://www.nonsequiturfollowdbysalesmessage.com

dipset
17-12-2007, 09:17 PM
its just a suggestion?
and yes i have only read the one thread and im very thrilled about the online tourneys

Trent Parker
18-12-2007, 11:28 PM
check the dates on this thread. It came it went and is now no longer.