PDA

View Full Version : Australian Clubs Team Champions



chesslover
14-02-2004, 06:06 PM
On September 2004, the Australian Clubs Teams Championship, the brainchild of Kerry Corker and Graeme Gardiner, and which was first initiated in 2003 will be repeated at Rydges Oasis Resort

This is an official Australian title event.

Teams of 8, of which at least three must be female and three male. Reserves may be freely substituted. The three females must play at least 80% of (the number of rounds x 3) between them, and at least two of them must play in each round. Prizes are Trophies for the winning team and boards plus the title of Australian Clubs Team Champion. There are no cash prizes for this event. Just the glory!. Entry Fee is $400 per team (no extra charge for reserves).

In 2003 , just six teams from 2003 participated.

But since this is an official Australian title event, does this format enable the team that wins in Gold Coast in 2004, to call themselves "the Australian Clubs team champion"?

Dont get me wrong - I do think that there should be a club event for Australian chess, and a yearly championship would be great - with the winner being able to call themselves the best chess club in Australia.

However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.

I know that this is not the fault of GG and the organisers. They did their best, and if people do nto come then what can they do? However it is hard for clubs to find 8 people and send them to Queensland for a week to contest the "Aust clubs championship" (esp for those not in eastern australia)

A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate

Then when individual scores for grand prix purposes are tabulated, we can also determine the "best chess club" by adding the scores of the nominated chess clubs of all grand prix point scorers.

At least it will be better than the current setup - at least that is what I think anyway

Are there any other options, or is the current setup by GG the best way to determine the "Australian Clubs Team Champions"?

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2004, 08:03 PM
However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.

At this stage the event is relatively low-key and social and the focus is on building interest. Hopefully if interest builds over time it will become a little more rigorous - for the time being as it is a new experiment a bit of looseness has to be expected.


A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate

You miss the main point of the title, which is to try to build up teams chess in Australia. Look at Europe and you will see how spectacularly successful this form of competition can be and how much it adds to the chess scene there.

Cat
15-02-2004, 01:13 AM
Teams of 8, of which at least three must be female and three male. Reserves may be freely substituted. The three females must play at least 80% of (the number of rounds x 3) between them, and at least two of them must play in each round. Prizes are Trophies for the winning team and boards plus the title of Australian Clubs Team Champion. There are no cash prizes for this event. Just the glory!. Entry Fee is $400 per team (no extra charge for reserves).

In 2003 , just six teams from 2003 participated.

But since this is an official Australian title event, does this format enable the team that wins in Gold Coast in 2004, to call themselves "the Australian Clubs team champion"?

Dont get me wrong - I do think that there should be a club event for Australian chess, and a yearly championship would be great - with the winner being able to call themselves the best chess club in Australia.

However last year just 6 teams attended - MCC and North Sydney and other big clubs did not particapte. What made it even worse was that not all of the 8 players who represented their "clubs" in teh 2003 events were regular players of their stated clubs.

I know that this is not the fault of GG and the organisers. They did their best, and if people do nto come then what can they do? However it is hard for clubs to find 8 people and send them to Queensland for a week to contest the "Aust clubs championship" (esp for those not in eastern australia)

A better way I think to find the "best chess club" may be to incorprate that with the grand prix events. Players who play in the grand prix events and weekenders, can nominate the club that they play for/are members of, and any grand prix points that they score in that event will be added to the chess club that they nominate

Then when individual scores for grand prix purposes are tabulated, we can also determine the "best chess club" by adding the scores of the nominated chess clubs of all grand prix point scorers.

At least it will be better than the current setup - at least that is what I think anyway

Are there any other options, or is the current setup by GG the best way to determine the "Australian Clubs Team Champions"?

This was a tremendous event and the winners were legitimate champions. The event was well publicised, the standard of entry was high, including Ian Rogers, (I think Darryl Johansen and several IM's. The event will be on again this year so the challenge is on.

This is another case of you shooting from the hip CL. If Sydney was under-represented then take it up with your fellows, but there is life outside Sydney. It would augure well for Australian Chess to take chess out of the shabby halls and social clubs and see more prestigious events like this on the calendar.

Many participants took a week away from their families and work to compete, they should be congratulated for their commitment. The team spirit creates a tremendous bond and camaraderie between team members. It took a lot of effort from a lot of people to get this together.

Well done to Kerry in particular for his vision and determination to be able to turn a great idea into a wonderful reality, and to Graeme for his tireless work.

Kerry Stead
15-02-2004, 02:49 AM
chesslover ...
Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? :rolleyes:

You seem to miss the point entirely! :wall:

The tournament is not about determining which chess club is the 'best' in Australia, rather it is another way in which chess in Australia can be fostered and grown. The emphasis of the tournament seemed to be more directed towards the social aspect of having 50 or so likeminded people together in one place (ask anyone from Club Bullwinkle if you doubt this). Yes, a chess tournament was held; yes, the winners were awarded the title of 'Australian Club Teams Champion'; yes, the event will be run and won again in 2004; yes, Graeme Gardiner, Kerry Corker, Norm Braybrooke and everyone else involved in the organisation and running of the event should be thanked. However what you seem to thing the tournament is or should be is different to the idea that the organisers have.

Let me tell you a short story about my own experience of the tournament. Initially I tried to organise a team from UNSW (which the team I finished up playing in was 'officially' named), however that did not eventuate, and the team became one of university students from around Sydney. However again it was not so simple, so we had to recruit a few 'potential' uni students for the team. Everything seemed to be going along fine until one of our team had a personal problem and had to withdraw from the team with only a few days to go before the event. Numerous phone calls, much pleading and begging got me nowhere as far as finding an eigth player for the team was concerned, until I called Graeme Gardiner and explained my dilemma. Wanting to make sure that the event happened (moreso than worrying about the technicalities of a team having all its members in Sydney), he suggested a Gold Coast girl who might be able to fill in on board 8 in the team. Reluctantly we accepted this offer, and pretty much agreed that the team was now fighting for 2nd place at best (behind the St George team headed by GM Rogers). Everyone on the team knew each other beforehand, however during the tournament our friendship grew ... the team bonded. This included the girl from the Gold Coast. In the end, our board 8 proved to be the difference, and her board-prize winning effort got us across the line.

So what do you think I am planning to do for 2004? Get as close to the same team as last year (one of our team returned to Malaysia after spending a year studying out here, so he will need to be replaced), including the girl from the Gold Coast! Why? Because we consider ourselves a TEAM (after all isn't that one of the words in the title?)!

I am sure that this year's event will be just as good if not better than the 2003 event (especially given that there will be less Scottish rugby thugs hogging the Rydges complex!), and will be just as much fun, both on and off the chess board! If you decide to come along chesslover, I'm sure that you'll change your tune about the event!

Rincewind
15-02-2004, 06:41 AM
Watch out, Kerry. You just might earn yourself a nomination in the best BB post of 2004 with that effort. :)

jenni
15-02-2004, 11:23 AM
I have to agree with other posters - Chesslover has missed the point totally.

The idea behind the teams comp was to make a chess event "FUN" - something that is hard to do if you are just adding up Grand Prix points long distance.

One of the major problems with chess, is it just lacks a social element. If you have a look at similar "mind sports" - bridge and wargaming of various types, they have a strong social element. Gareth is slowly being seduced by his father's wargaming interest, because he really enjoys the socialising that happens alongside the strategy and gaming. This is seriously missing in a game of chess, which can be intense focus for hours at a time.

Caloundra (which is on the Sunshine coast, not the Gold coast), was a really fun event. Of course the chess was pretty serious and there were some really good games played. However the socialising that went on around it was what made the event a success. Tamzin was kidnapped by the St George team and taken to Steve Irwin's zoo and she still talks about it and how Ingela Erikkson had to touch a snake! We also talk about the "zoo effect" - everyone who went to the zoo that morning had a seriously bad afternoon game! OK - so maybe none of this contributes to the quality of the chess, but if it adds to the enthusiasm for the game and keeps people playing then it has succeeded in its aim. Life is about more than just winning!

chesslover
15-02-2004, 05:09 PM
At this stage the event is relatively low-key and social and the focus is on building interest. Hopefully if interest builds over time it will become a little more rigorous - for the time being as it is a new experiment a bit of looseness has to be expected.

You miss the main point of the title, which is to try to build up teams chess in Australia. Look at Europe and you will see how spectacularly successful this form of competition can be and how much it adds to the chess scene there.

I agree, that teams chess is good, and all the major sporting codes in australia, have club teams compettion as the mainstay of their sports. And yes, in Europe and in particular Germany it is very successful.

All I am saying is, how can you say that the winner of the tourney is the "Australian club team champion", when clubs from MCC, North Sydney, WA, SA have all not entered. Also some of those who played in the "Aust club team champs" are not even members of these clubs, and do not play there regularly

jenni
15-02-2004, 05:18 PM
Its just a name - who cares! If you want to be technical, there were 3 states represented and 6 teams, which I think is all you need for a title to be legitimate. Hopefully over time the comp will grow - have to start somewhere. As I said before on another thread - Graeme does, while others talk (and whinge).

The important thing is that everyone enjoyed it and it made people want to play more chess. A case in point is Sylvia Pleskott. For those who don't remember Sylvia, she was one of our "strong" girl players in the 90's and represented Australia a number of times. She had pretty much dropped off the chess horizon. She was bludgeoned into playing for the Uni team, because of the 3 female rule and had a wonderful time. As a result she played in the reserves in Adelaide in January and hopefully we will see a lot more of her.

How about creating something chesslover, instead of always criticising!

chesslover
15-02-2004, 05:31 PM
there is no need to get narky :(

I made a valid point. I am entitled to make it. maybe I am pedantic, but there was just 2 states (and one territory) representated - as Vic, Tas, SA and WA were not represented.

And yes GG's idea of a club event is good, and I think it is a good idea in terms of social activity and developing chess. I am apprewciative of that.

My point is only this - is the tourney the best way to determine the Australian chess club team champion?

I am not argueing about the idea of GG, I am not agrueing about the social side, I am not argueing or criticising any part of the comp. All I am saying is that the title as an offical Australian chess title event, is not the best way to choose the Australian champion club team

jenni
15-02-2004, 06:15 PM
but there was just 2 states (and one territory) representated - as Vic, Tas, SA and WA were not represented.



Well this raises an interesting point - I had always been told that a title wasn't valid, unless 3 states/territories were represented. However I have just had a very quick flick through the constitution and by-laws (seem to be doing that a lot lately) and can find no mention of that.

Can an ACF person please enlighten us as to whether there is any such rule for titles and how it applies?

chesslover
15-02-2004, 06:29 PM
chesslover ...
Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? :rolleyes:

You seem to miss the point entirely! :wall:

The tournament is not about determining which chess club is the 'best' in Australia, rather it is another way in which chess in Australia can be fostered and grown. The emphasis of the tournament seemed to be more directed towards the social aspect


That is not nice. I have the highest respect and admiration for you and you are taking me out of context.

When you say that "chesslover ...Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? :rolleyes:" that is WRONG as in W-R-O-N-G.

There have only been 3 issues that I have had with initiatives - the ACF commisson proposal, the NECG appeal issue and the Sunshine coast team winner calling themsleves the offical "Aust club team champion". In fact in most of other ACF initiatives I have been fully supportive, and indeed in one of them (the best post 2003 prize) I have been most viciously attacked for supporting the ACF policy of having a prize for the best post 2003, supporting paul B in his decision to allow self nomination, and for supporting Paul B in allowing multiple self nominations

In the NECG matter - the only issue I had was with the lack of appeal over the selection. Everything else, including the admirable and hard working efforts in getting the sponsor, the website you setup, the selection panel, the whole concept I had thought was excellent and very good work.

Similarly I agree with this whole social side issues, the need for a club based team tournament, the fact that this is a great initiative etc. All I am saying in this issue is that teh winner is not the best Aust chess club team, as strong clubs in Australia have not entered, and in any case as you pointed out members who played are not regular members of the club they played for.

To then state that this means that I am opposed to all initiatives is unfair and not just. :( :(

PS - SInce you are so good at taking things out of context, do you want to join President Bush's team that is now trawling through Senator kerry's records in an effort to find items that they can use to attack him? Your legal skills will be very useful for them ;) :p

PHAT
15-02-2004, 07:46 PM
CL,

The ACTC is at the moment, principly as social teams event that draws groups of strong, average and weak players together for social-cum-serious chess. Many events and sports have there origin in such high spirited endevours - eg Triathlon and soccer respectively. That the ACTC has been blessed by the ACF as being a legit Australian Championship. If we are lucky, as the event grows in popularity - as it may well do - may also retain its heralded social atmosphere as the strength and representation grows.

By not seeing this potential, you are missing the whole point of the event.

chesslover
15-02-2004, 09:13 PM
Well this raises an interesting point - I had always been told that a title wasn't valid, unless 3 states/territories were represented. However I have just had a very quick flick through the constitution and by-laws (seem to be doing that a lot lately) and can find no mention of that.

Can an ACF person please enlighten us as to whether there is any such rule for titles and how it applies?

jenni,

according to the ACF consititution, it specifically states that (clause 1bvii) that "State" includes an Australian Territory . Thus contrary to the division of Australian federation into 6 states and 2 territories, under the ACF there are 8 "states"

This of course raises another point - since "state" includes an "Australian Territory", people in Norfolk Island, Christmas island, AUstralian Antartic Territory and other Australian External territories, may be able to claim that they are "states" as well - and the equivalent of the 6 Australian states

chesslover
15-02-2004, 09:23 PM
The ACF by-law for ACF tournament, under clause 2 specify the titles that shall be recognised by the ACF;

2. The following titles shall be recognised. Junior titles ( " [junior] " )
will be awarded in the categories of Junior, Under-16, Under-14, Under-12,
Under-10, Girls, Girls Under-16, Girls Under-14, Girls U-12 and Girls U-10.
1. Australian Champion
2 a-j. Australian [junior] Champion
3. Australian Womens Champion
4. Australian Open Champion
5. Australian STD Club Champion
6. Australian Rapid Play Champion
7. Australian Womens Rapid Play Champion
8. Australian Open Rapid Play Champion
9. Australian Womens Open Rapid Play Champion
10 a-j. Australian [junior} Rapid Play Champion
11. Australian Senior Champion
12. Australian Lightning Champion
13. Australian Womens Lightning Champion
14. Australian Open Lightning Champion
15. Australian Womens Open Lightning Champion
16 a-j. Australian [junior] Lightning Champion
17. Australian Chess Champion with a Disability
18. Australian Match Play Champion
19. Australian Secondary Schools Girls Teams Champions
20. Australian Secondary Schools Open Teams Champions
21. Australian Primary Schools Girls Teams Champions
22. Australian Primary Schools Open Teams Champions."

There does not seem to be any mention of the Aust Chess Team Champions, unless of course the by-laws have not been updated on the website :confused: :confused:

Also only qualification seems to be specified in clause 3 - " Persons who are Australian citizens or who, in the opinion of the Council, are permanent residents of Australia shall be eligible to hold titles.However, in the case of an open tournament, all competitors shall be eligible to hold the title".

Kerry Stead
15-02-2004, 09:37 PM
That is not nice. I have the highest respect and admiration for you and you are taking me out of context.

When you say that "chesslover ...Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? :rolleyes:" that is WRONG as in W-R-O-N-G.

Good to know that you are able to spell ...
As for apparently taking you out of context, how am I doing so?
To use a comparisson, would you say that Darryl Johansen was NOT the Australian Champion of 2000 because a number of leading players did not participate (eg: no Ian Rogers, no John-Paul Wallace, etc)? It was definitely not up to the 'usual' standard as far as Australian Championships are concerned (compare the field in Mingara to that in the most recent championships in Adelaide). I think you would consider him the legitimate champion because he played and won the tournament that the ACF said was the Australian Championship. It is likewise with the Australian Clubs Team Championship.
What you seem to THINK the title means (correct me if I am W-R-O-N-G about this) is that the winning club/team is therefore the best chess club in Australia. This is not the case.


There have only been 3 issues that I have had with initiatives - the ACF commisson proposal, the NECG appeal issue and the Sunshine coast team winner calling themsleves the offical "Aust club team champion". In fact in most of other ACF initiatives I have been fully supportive, and indeed in one of them (the best post 2003 prize) I have been most viciously attacked for supporting the ACF policy of having a prize for the best post 2003, supporting paul B in his decision to allow self nomination, and for supporting Paul B in allowing multiple self nominations

Again, correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't the 3 initiatives that you mention the three most significant issues that have come from the ACF (or at least has had some ACF involvement) in recent years?? I would hardly compare the commission proposal (for example) with the best post prize, which seems to only involve around 20 people at the most, and to my mind has little significance to the furthering of Australian Chess (unlike the three initiatives you mentioned). To paraphrase from Pulp Fiction 'They're not in the same ballpark, heck they're not even the same game!'
As a side issue, weren't you one of the few people who actually wanted to nominate one of your own posts, indeed multiple self-nominations? It would make you look rather hypocritical if you nominated yourself numerous times and then went against the policy to allow multiple self-nominations?


In the NECG matter - the only issue I had was with the lack of appeal over the selection. Everything else, including the admirable and hard working efforts in getting the sponsor, the website you setup, the selection panel, the whole concept I had thought was excellent and very good work.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in regards to the squad generally (and in particular the efforts of Graeme Gardiner and Jenni Oliver in getting the sponsor onboard). However your handling of your objection to the 'no appeals' issue was done rather poorly, as almost everyone else on the BB who looked at your posts stated. Exactly what did you hope to achieve by doing what you did, apart from potentially losing the sponsor and thereby throwing away the many hours of hard work put in by volunteers for the betterment of Australian chess??


Similarly I agree with this whole social side issues, the need for a club based team tournament, the fact that this is a great initiative etc. All I am saying in this issue is that teh winner is not the best Aust chess club team, as strong clubs in Australia have not entered, and in any case as you pointed out members who played are not regular members of the club they played for.

How do you propose to correct this problem? The clubs you use as examples, MCC and North Sydney, both had the opportunity to enter a team in the competition, however they chose not to. How does this change the facts? The winning team in 2003, as will be the case in 2004, can rightly call themselves the Australian Clubs Team Champion. Why? Because the ACF says so! Is it that hard to understand??
There may not be quite the level of prestige as there would be had other strong clubs decided to send a team, however the title is still perfectly valid as a title. By all means say that the tournament could have been stronger (I don't think anyone would doubt that), however it was run, it was won, end of story.


To then state that this means that I am opposed to all initiatives is unfair and not just. :( :(
Who is taking who out of context?? Did I say that you were opposed to all initiatives? I'll make it easy for you and quote what I said originally:

chesslover ...
Seriously, is there any initiative in Australian chess that you don't seem to have an issue with?? :rolleyes:
Correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this simply a (possibly rhetorical) question? (The ??s are a big hint if you didn't already get it) It is not a statement. You attempted to challenge the question, and there is nothing wrong (as in W-R-O-N-G) with doing that, but try not to misinterpret what I am saying.


PS - SInce you are so good at taking things out of context, do you want to join President Bush's team that is now trawling through Senator kerry's records in an effort to find items that they can use to attack him? Your legal skills will be very useful for them ;) :p

:hand: I'll choose to ignore this, for fear of taking it out of context. ;)

Can I suggest you heed the advice of an old saying:
To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME!
Please try to avoid assumptions in the future (best done by knowing and checking facts beforehand).

chesslover
15-02-2004, 09:54 PM
Good to know that you are able to spell ...
As for apparently taking you out of context, how am I doing so?
To use a comparisson, would you say that Darryl Johansen was NOT the Australian Champion of 2000 because a number of leading players did not participate (eg: no Ian Rogers, no John-Paul Wallace, etc)? It was definitely not up to the 'usual' standard as far as Australian Championships are concerned (compare the field in Mingara to that in the most recent championships in Adelaide). I think you would consider him the legitimate champion because he played and won the tournament that the ACF said was the Australian Championship. It is likewise with the Australian Clubs Team Championship.
What you seem to THINK the title means (correct me if I am W-R-O-N-G about this) is that the winning club/team is therefore the best chess club in Australia. This is not the case.



Again, correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't the 3 initiatives that you mention the three most significant issues that have come from the ACF (or at least has had some ACF involvement) in recent years?? I would hardly compare the commission proposal (for example) with the best post prize, which seems to only involve around 20 people at the most, and to my mind has little significance to the furthering of Australian Chess (unlike the three initiatives you mentioned). To paraphrase from Pulp Fiction 'They're not in the same ballpark, heck they're not even the same game!'
As a side issue, weren't you one of the few people who actually wanted to nominate one of your own posts, indeed multiple self-nominations? It would make you look rather hypocritical if you nominated yourself numerous times and then went against the policy to allow multiple self-nominations?



Thanks for the vote of confidence in regards to the squad generally (and in particular the efforts of Graeme Gardiner and Jenni Oliver in getting the sponsor onboard). However your handling of your objection to the 'no appeals' issue was done rather poorly, as almost everyone else on the BB who looked at your posts stated. Exactly what did you hope to achieve by doing what you did, apart from potentially losing the sponsor and thereby throwing away the many hours of hard work put in by volunteers for the betterment of Australian chess??



How do you propose to correct this problem? The clubs you use as examples, MCC and North Sydney, both had the opportunity to enter a team in the competition, however they chose not to. How does this change the facts? The winning team in 2003, as will be the case in 2004, can rightly call themselves the Australian Clubs Team Champion. Why? Because the ACF says so! Is it that hard to understand??
There may not be quite the level of prestige as there would be had other strong clubs decided to send a team, however the title is still perfectly valid as a title. By all means say that the tournament could have been stronger (I don't think anyone would doubt that), however it was run, it was won, end of story.


Who is taking who out of context?? Did I say that you were opposed to all initiatives? I'll make it easy for you and quote what I said originally:

Correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this simply a (possibly rhetorical) question? (The ??s are a big hint if you didn't already get it) It is not a statement. You attempted to challenge the question, and there is nothing wrong (as in W-R-O-N-G) with doing that, but try not to misinterpret what I am saying.



:hand: I'll choose to ignore this, for fear of taking it out of context. ;)

Can I suggest you heed the advice of an old saying:
To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME!
Please try to avoid assumptions in the future (best done by knowing and checking facts beforehand).

1. No I would not say that - if none of the top 100 australian players showed up, and you won the Aust championship, then YOU would be the Aust champ - irrespective of the fact that it was not a strong event. To tou would go teh glory and honour and status and prestige of being the Aust champion

I accept your point, that if this is a designated ACF title event, and the winner is to get that title, then if strong clubs like MCC and North Sydney do not show up, then yes, the title deserves to go to whoever won the comp

2. The difference is, and even you admitted it - is that players who "play" in the club champs, do not really PLAY in those clubs.

I am also not thinking that equating the winner of the Aust club champs as being the BEST club in Australia as you assume ( i will not make make satarical comment on how when you assume you make an ass of you and me!! :p ) but is like equating the winner to the strongest club team for that year - which is plainly wrong when some of the players do not even play for that club.

3. As for the NECG appeal, I only posted that so that poor parents who could only challenge any selection in a court, had an alternative avenue to appeal the NECG selections ie the NECG management. Anyway enough has been said about that issue, so let us not continue this topic.

4. As for multiple self nominations, I have now deleted all my multiple self nomination, and just have one self post nomination. Again this self post. multiple nomination topics has probably been done to death, so let us not revisit it

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 10:14 PM
Can I suggest you heed the advice of an old saying:
To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME!

You are probably lucky you didnt call him a female gander. ;)

chesslover
15-02-2004, 10:19 PM
You are probably lucky you didnt call him a female gander. ;)

very mature :(

I thought you were going to stop that :confused:

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 10:26 PM
very mature :(

I thought you were going to stop that :confused:
A few points.
I agreed to stop in relation to Kevin's post on what constituted a goose and how it related to multiple self nominations. This thread has nothing to do with Kevin's posts with regards to what constitutes a goose.
I also agreed to stop making comments against you in regards to your self nominations, bb board prizes etc.
I have continued to uphold my pary of the agreement in those respects.

I DID NOT however agree not to call you a goose for any future behaviour on your part based on other issues.

Lastlty, I did not call you a goose in my post above.
I just suggested to Kerry it was lucky he didnt.

chesslover
15-02-2004, 10:34 PM
A few points.
I agreed to stop in relation to Kevin's post on what constituted a goose and how it related to multiple self nominations. This thread has nothing to do with Kevin's posts with regards to what constitutes a goose.
I also agreed to stop making comments against you in regards to your self nominations, bb board prizes etc.
I have continued to uphold my pary of the agreement in those respects.

I DID NOT however agree not to call you a goose for any future behaviour on your part based on other issues.

Lastlty, I did not call you a goose in my post above.
I just suggested to Kerry it was lucky he didnt.

Ok, fair point

BTW to be an official ACF title event, the ACF must amend it's by-laws as seen in the relevent clause that I quoted? Currently the by-laws as posted in the ACF websitedoes not have the Aust Club Teams champs as a title event.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 10:36 PM
Ok, fair point

BTW to be an official ACF title event, the ACF must amend it's by-laws as seen in the relevent clause that I quoted? Currently the by-laws as posted in the ACF websitedoes not have the Aust Club Teams champs as a title event.

Pretty sure we amended those ages ago.

Garvinator
15-02-2004, 10:42 PM
Pretty sure we amended those ages ago.
so is this another case of the published by laws being inaccurate?

chesslover
15-02-2004, 10:45 PM
so is this another case of the published by laws being inaccurate?

unless when the ACF by-laws state " Australian STD Club Champion", they are referring somehow to the Aust Club Team Champions?

If so I just cannot figure out what STD would stand for - state team something? :confused:

chesslover
15-02-2004, 10:47 PM
so is this another case of the published by laws being inaccurate?

however the consitituion has been updated with the details of the jan 2004 ACF meeting

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 10:54 PM
unless when the ACF by-laws state " Australian STD Club Champion", they are referring somehow to the Aust Club Team Champions?

If so I just cannot figure out what STD would stand for - state team something? :confused:
The STD Club Champion title has been in the By-Law for ages long before the concept of the Australian Teams was ever thought of.
I believe it is a throwback to STD telephone/telegraphic matches, but cannot be certain.

Bill Gletsos
15-02-2004, 10:55 PM
however the consitituion has been updated with the details of the jan 2004 ACF meeting
True but the By-laws are a different matter.
I think a number of them on the web site may be out dated.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 11:32 PM
I believe it is a throwback to STD telephone/telegraphic matches, but cannot be certain.

It is.

PHAT
16-02-2004, 06:17 AM
You people astound me. You just make up crap as you go. STD stands for Sexually Transmisable Disease.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 08:53 AM
It also stands for Subscriber Trunk Dialling.

arosar
16-02-2004, 10:19 AM
I generally agree with all other posters here. What I don't like is this ridiculous requirement of having 3 sheilas in the team. Say, Canterbury or Fairfield decide to go, where are they suppose to get 3 females?

AR

Cat
16-02-2004, 10:23 AM
It also stands for Subscriber Trunk Dialling.
Just shows what can happen if you hold the reciever too close to your ear!

Cat
16-02-2004, 10:26 AM
I generally agree with all other posters here. What I don't like is this ridiculous requirement of having 3 sheilas in the team. Say, Canterbury or Fairfield decide to go, where are they suppose to get 3 females?

AR

Boy, is Jenni going to give it to you! I'd find something else to do for the next 2 weeks.

Garvinator
16-02-2004, 10:39 AM
Boy, is Jenni going to give it to you! I'd find something else to do for the next 2 weeks.
ill start for jenni, because it is so obvious the first part of the answer. Most of the ppl have said on here that half the event is the social aspect, so having girls in the team helps that. Too many guys together and it becomes way too serious for social stuff.

Also i take it the event is to help womens chess by allowing them to play decent male players so they can get a taste of top flight australian chess :D

arosar
16-02-2004, 10:46 AM
So we gotta round up a coupla chicks just to go? You gotta be bloody kiddin' me. Look mate, encourage 'em - sure. No prob with that. But to make it a requirement makes it a bit hard mate when them clubs are male dominated anyways. You go to Canterbury for example mate and they're all a bunch of freakin' old fogeys who bore me sc*hi_tless. That's why I don't go there anymore. They had their AGM a coupla weeks back and it was the same as the NSW AGM. You sit there listening to all their sob miserable stories about how chess could be improved, blah, blah, blah. I just couldn't bloody stand it - so I just got up an bolted.

AR

ursogr8
16-02-2004, 11:06 AM
So we gotta round up a coupla chicks just to go? You gotta be bloody kiddin' me. Look mate, encourage 'em - sure. No prob with that. But to make it a requirement makes it a bit hard mate when them clubs are male dominated anyways. You go to Canterbury for example mate and they're all a bunch of freakin' old fogeys who bore me sc*hi_tless. That's why I don't go there anymore. They had their AGM a coupla weeks back and it was the same as the NSW AGM. You sit there listening to all their sob miserable stories about how chess could be improved, blah, blah, blah. I just couldn't bloody stand it - so I just got up an bolted.

AR

AR
I hope AR that before you bolted that you told the old geezers that you had become convinced, from reading the bulletin board, that they had become seduced by the Leagues Club environs and this may have to be broken if Canterbury are to attract juniors and females. Or did you just slink out having decided it was a lost cause?
starter

jenni
16-02-2004, 11:15 AM
I generally agree with all other posters here. What I don't like is this ridiculous requirement of having 3 sheilas in the team. Say, Canterbury or Fairfield decide to go, where are they suppose to get 3 females?

AR
That's the whole point Amiel! It

a - really puts the focus on how few of us there are (well chess playing ones anyway)

b - gives a real incentive to the (what's a derogatory word for men to match sheilas? - drongos?) to go out and find some. The teams that went there had them and some even had more than they needed e.g. Sunshine and Bullwinkle. Of course some weren't really kosher members of the clubs they represented, so there is nothing to stop Fairfield and Canterbury doing the same.

Belconnen Chess Club currently has 7 females playing at it - we've had a large drop off this year, but we could still manage 2 teams and meet the requirement. So maybe the idea is to start recruiting and being nice to sheilas.

It does make the parties a lot more fun.......

jenni
16-02-2004, 11:20 AM
Boy, is Jenni going to give it to you! I'd find something else to do for the next 2 weeks.

Actually I find AR's sexism quite endearing, unlike some of the others. He really is just a lost cause.

arosar
16-02-2004, 11:21 AM
It does make the parties a lot more fun.......

Oh yeah? How?

AR

jenni
16-02-2004, 11:49 AM
Oh yeah? How?

AR

Oh dear! Your social life must be seriously lacking (or am I being insensitive - see homophobic thread)

Garvinator
16-02-2004, 11:51 AM
Oh dear! Your social life must be seriously lacking (or am I being insensitive - see homophobic thread)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

arosar
16-02-2004, 12:02 PM
Oh dear! Your social life must be seriously lacking (or am I being insensitive - see homophobic thread)

Oh Puh-lzz . . . I assure you seniora, my social life ain't lacking. In fact, I prolly understand "social life" better than most chess players.

Now I could spell out the point of my question, but that would be too insensitive, wouldn't it? (Now, now, I know them fellaz here know what I'm talking about! And so do you.)

AR

Paul S
16-02-2004, 01:54 PM
You go to Canterbury for example mate and they're all a bunch of freakin' old fogeys who bore me sc*hi_tless. That's why I don't go there anymore. They had their AGM a coupla weeks back and it was the same as the NSW AGM. You sit there listening to all their sob miserable stories about how chess could be improved, blah, blah, blah. I just couldn't bloody stand it - so I just got up an bolted.

AR

I got a different impression from Amiel as to what took place at Canterbury's AGM. Sure, there are a lot of older poeple at Canterbury, but its like that at virtually every other Sydney chess club, in that most people are over 50.

Personally I found Canterbury's AGM quite constructive. It went longer than I expected (based on last year's meeting I had expected it to last about 30 minutes, but instead it lasted 1 hour and 10 minutes). Why shouldn't people raise issues at a chess club's AGM? What other time of year could be more appopriate to raise issues? What other time of year could be more appropriate to raise "miserable stories about how chess could be improved, blah, blah, blah" as Amiel puts it? Sure, a few people (I suspect Amiel was one of them), may have felt put out that the advertised lighting comp (to follow the AGM) did not start until 9pm, but as far as I am concerned, the AGM takes precedence, and I am sure that most present at Canterbury's AGM would agree with me.

It's disapponting to hear of Amiel's attitude - it seems that like most chess players he just expects service to be provided to him instead of contributing to making things happen by taking on a constructive role in club chess (ie becoming a club secratary/organiser/treasurer etc).

What does Amiel expect? Can people in their 60s and 70s (which form a large part of a typical Sydney chess club's membership base) really be expected to be doing the major roles in running a chess club? Why don't people like Amiel (who is 30 or 31), contribute towards running club chess, instead of continually criticising and whingeing?

I'm not so young now (I'm 40) and I'll readily admit that (due to less than ideal interpersonal skills) I'm not the best person to be the "main organiser" at a chess club (Canterbury), but what I do know is this, that its better to have someone doing it than no-one at all!!! In fact (due to lack of people who are willing to contribute to doing things in Chess Admin), I have taken on the role of Treasurer for 2004 at a rival chess club (St George)! Nobody at St George's AGM (held on 10/2/04 - BTW, I was NOT present at this AGM) wanted to fill this role, so Charles Zworestine (who I regard highly) asked me to take on the role of 2004 St George Treasurer, which I accepted (out of my regard and respect for Charles - viz its not a role that I wanted to take on!).

Relatively speaking, there are very few people involved in chess between the ages of, say, 20 to 45. There are even fewer in this 20 to 45 age group who (due primarily to marriage and/or children and/or work commitments) have the time and availability to get involved in chess admin. It is disappointing that Amiel who is in the middle of this 20 to 45 age group (and, like me, is single) does not contribute to club chess admin but instead chooses to whinge, complain and criticise. As can be seen by the large number of posts Amiel makes (a lot more than mine!), he obviously has the time available to get involved in club chess admin, so why doesn't he?

From what I have been told, the Fairfield chess club (of which Amiel is a member) has FAR superior funding arrangements to any other Sydney chess club (from recollection, it is about 4 times better than Canterbury, and Canterbury's funding arrangents are typical of most Sydney chess clubs), but that none of their members can be bothered to do anything towards running it (eg they got Bob Keast to do ALL the work in running their Summer Cup!!!). Yet this potentially great advantage to Australian chess (and Sydney chess in particular) seems to a large extent to be going to waste because people like Amiel do not want to get involved in club chess admin.

Paul S
16-02-2004, 02:16 PM
OK, back to the topic of this thread!

I have just voted in this poll, but have done so strictly by the wording of the question and answers (options) available (BTW, I suspect that there is some "push polling" by Chesslover in the wording of the poll question and yes/no answer add-ons). If the question (and the add-ons to the yes/no answers) had been worded differently, then I may well have voted "yes".

The reason I voted no was because I think that there are better (and more accurate) ways to determine the Australian Club Champion. Indeed, as Chesslover (and others) have acknowledged, the composition of the "teams" is a bit rubbery (eg Kerry Stead is St George President, but was the Sydney Universities team captain!!!).

Nonetheless, I think what Grahame Gardiner and Kerry Corker (and others) have done is a great initiative and they are to be commended for their efforts. From what I can gather, the people who actually played in it were happy with the way things worked out, and in my book that is what matters at the end of the day.

Due to its nature, chess is a somewhat anti-social game, so (as Jenni and Kerry have pointed out), a competition like this with a heavy emphasis on socialising is a commendable initiative.

Perhaps in light of the less serious (more social) nature of this competition (probably in part caused by its great location on the Queensland Sunshine Coast!) and the "rubberiness" of the teams' composition, the tournament should be renamed to something like "Sunshine Coast Club Champion Tournament" instead of "Australian Club Champion Tournament"?

arosar
16-02-2004, 02:34 PM
Come off it mate. Why is it that your types always reel out the bleedin' heart stories about some people not doing chess admin and how you lot are left to do all the bloody hard work? Congrats and cheers to you boys - but most of us ain't got no interest in it. Oh and FYI, those of us who don't do any admin work actually put in quite a bit to that local cottage industry called 'chess retailing'.

Now tell me Paulie, all that yappin' in the AGM - any good come out of it? (LATE EDIT: And lemme just add that some of these old timers talk so g*d*dam_n slowly that they'd just about keel over before finishing a sentence. It drove me nuts!!)

As for Bob, I believe he's paid for his efforts.

AR

arosar
16-02-2004, 02:52 PM
Due to its nature, chess is a somewhat anti-social game, so (as Jenni and Kerry have pointed out), a competition like this with a heavy emphasis on socialising is a commendable initiative.

How is it anti-social?

On New Year's, we set up a couple boards in a pub (on Oxford St no less!) and played til early dawn. Mate, we had a jolly good time, beer, pizza and chicks all around. A coupla babes even sat down for some lessons. After a particularly frenetic blitz game, some of the crowds actually applauded! (Btw, one of those boards we used was once played on by pretend world champ, Pono).

If you lot convince yourselves that chess is anti-social then you'll be stuck eternally in that stupid mind-set. And your actions will always reflect your mind-set. So, you behave like a silly dork, dress badly, etc.

AR

ursogr8
16-02-2004, 02:53 PM
What does Amiel expect? Can people in their 60s and 70s (which form a large part of a typical Sydney chess club's membership base) really be expected to be doing the major roles in running a chess club? Why don't people like Amiel (who is 30 or 31), contribute towards running club chess, instead of continually criticising and whingeing?



Paul S.

Usually I am on your wavelength about the importance of volunteers. But your comments about the necessary age of volunteers just doesn't ring true. Consider Box Hill <Captain, Secretary, Web-master, Treasurer> <80+, 65+,60+,50+> (not in matching sequence). Plenty of other key helpers as you know from other threads...that is our cultural objective. Just put on two new helpers (see Box Hill Autumn Cup thread). One to become Whitehorse Treasurer (he is under 15) and the other on the VIC OPEN organising committee, he is U18.

Any age can contribute Paul. It is a local cultural issue you face.


starter

Paul S
16-02-2004, 03:10 PM
Come off it mate. Why is it that your types always reel out the bleedin' heart stories about some people not doing chess admin and how you lot are left to do all the bloody hard work?

The reason I "reel out the bleedin' heart stories about some people not doing chess admin and how you lot are left to do all the bloody hard work" as you put it is simple. This is beacause I believe that the biggest problem in Australian chess is the lack of people doing the organising/admin work!!! See my posts in the thread I created in the old BB "The Biggest Problem in Chess".

I don't mean to sound as if "I am doing everything"! In fact I readily acknowledge (and have done so in other posts!) that there are others whose "chess admin workload" is 5 to 10 times that of mine! Just off the top of my head, some of the people in Sydney in this category would be Bill Gletsos, Charles Zworestine, Kerry Stead, Norm Greenwood, Peter Cassettari etc etc.


Congrats and cheers to you boys - but most of us ain't got no interest in it. Oh and FYI, those of us who don't do any admin work actually put in quite a bit to that local cottage industry called 'chess retailing'.
AR

From my observations, most of the people who are currently doing chess admin work would be quite happy to let someone else do their work (or some of their work). The reason they usually do it is because nobody else will!

Just because you have "no interest in it", does not excuse you from not contributing. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can contribute to chess admin should contribute. Its just a case of people doing their fair share and not dumping things on others.

Anyway, as a matter of interest, what "chess retailing" work do you do (other than giving Peter Parr a free plug for his business)?



Now tell me Paulie, all that yappin' in the AGM - any good come out of it?
AR

Yes, I think some good came out of it. How good remains to be seen in the weeks ahead.


As for Bob, I believe he's paid for his efforts.
AR

Whatever Bob was paid (if he was paid at all!) would have been a pittance compared to the work that he put in at your Fairfield Club's Summer Cup. I was there briefly on the first day (Saturday) as I had to see Bob (and Norm Greenwood and others) about various matters. From what I could see, Bob did everything at the Fairfield Summer Cup. Regardless of whether Bob was paid a pittance or not, it seemed to me extremely poor form that (from what I could see and from what I was told) nobody from Fairfield chess club helped him with running a tournament that had something like 88 players in it.

arosar
16-02-2004, 03:18 PM
Anyway, as a matter of interest, what "chess retailing" work do you do (other than giving Peter Parr a free plug for his business)?

FMD! Don't you get it? Of course I don't do chess retailing. I SPEND money in 'em businesses. And heaps of it too.


Regardless of whether Bob was paid a pittance or not, it seemed to me extremely poor form that (from what I could see and from what I was told) nobody from Fairfield chess club helped him with running a tournament that had something like 88 players in it.

Take it up with Roly. There's some politicial trouble in that club too. And that's another thing that sc*hits me.

AR

Paul S
16-02-2004, 03:25 PM
How is it anti-social?

On New Year's, we set up a couple boards in a pub (on Oxford St no less!) and played til early dawn. Mate, we had a jolly good time, beer, pizza and chicks all around. A coupla babes even sat down for some lessons. After a particularly frenetic blitz game, some of the crowds actually applauded! (Btw, one of those boards we used was once played on by pretend world champ, Pono).

If you lot convince yourselves that chess is anti-social then you'll be stuck eternally in that stupid mind-set. And your actions will always reflect your mind-set. So, you behave like a silly dork, dress badly, etc.

AR

I was referring to competition chess. If you talk or make any noise during competition chess, then people tell you to be quiet very quickly! As such, it is difficult to socialise with players during club chess nights!

The New Year's Day example you give is a fine example of friends getting together for games of chess, but it is NOT what happens at chess clubs! As soon as it is 7.30pm on a chess club night, people just want to play their game(s) and that is it! This is what I meant by chess having an anti-social aspect to it. Chess is even more "anti-social" at weekend tournaments. There are minimal opportunities for socialising at club and weekend tournament chess.

arosar
16-02-2004, 03:36 PM
The New Year's Day example you give is a fine example of friends getting together for a game of chess, but it is NOT what happens at chess clubs! As soon as it is 7.30pm on a chess club night, people just want to play their game(s) and that is it! This is what I meant by chess having an anti-social aspect to it. Chess is even more "anti-social" at weekend tournaments. There are minimal opportunities for socialising at club and weekend tournament chess.

Oh OK, I get ya Paulie. I tell ya mate, no offence, but as soon as I walk into Canterbury, I swear, I feel like I've just walked into the chess championships of the living dead.

Your observation re w/enders is quite right. So how's about we innovate? I'm thinkin' a tourn wherein we have a pint after every coupla rounds? I'm sure some other members can think of other more interesting variations. Of course, it's not really a proper comp - but chess for fun pure and simple!

AR

Cat
16-02-2004, 03:44 PM
Perhaps in light of the less serious (more social) nature of this competition (probably in part caused by its great location on the Queensland Sunshine Coast!) and the "rubberiness" of the teams' composition, the tournament should be renamed to something like "Sunshine Coast Club Champion Tournament" instead of "Australian Club Champion Tournament"?

What crap! Just because Sydney weren't able to muster a half decent side and because the Sunshine Coast is a bit too nice, it doesn't stand on its own merit? This is yet another example of ACF Sydney-centric myopia. As for rubberiness, a degree of this happens in all sports. How many All Blacks are from NZ, how many olympic athletes has Australia recruited from overseas? The tournament stands as a beacon for Australian Chess, open your eyes Paul.

Paul S
16-02-2004, 03:46 PM
Oh OK, I get ya Paulie. I tell ya mate, no offence, but as soon as I walk into Canterbury, I swear, I feel like I've just walked into the chess championships of the living dead.
AR

No offence taken, Amiel. :)

From my experience of Sydney chess clubs, the "atmosphere" at Canterbury is similar to that of most Sydney chess clubs.


Your observation re w/enders is quite right. So how's about we innovate? I'm thinkin' a tourn wherein we have a pint after every coupla rounds? I'm sure some other members can think of other more interesting variations. Of course, it's not really a proper comp - but chess for fun pure and simple!
AR

Fine! Go ahead and organise it!

Yes, the idea of a pint of beer after every round sounds good to me - I like to drink and I reckon after a few rounds I could beat some players of 1800+ :) ;)

rob
16-02-2004, 03:51 PM
I consider the title 'Australian Clubs Teams Championship' to be inappropriately named.

The posts on this subject suggest that the 'Australian Social Teams Tournament' would give a better indication of the type of event that was held.

As it stands this event seems to have left itself open to ridicule: 'clubs' when ppl do not need to belong to those clubs, 3 females per team and the other commitments required really brings out the 'championship' standard clubs (I think not).

Some ppl may be trying to promote the social side of chess (and/or increase female participation) with this event. As it seems to give them that fuzzy warm feeling about making a difference then perhaps we should not spoil their delusion - but when they use the championship title they reduce the value of other championship titles won by genuine champion players (I object).

Personally, I prefer Arosar's type of socialising - lightning chess in a pub: lots of fun games, more ppl exposed to chess in an exciting format. :) Also no need to pay over $1000 (flight & accomodation) and rely on other team members to all do likewise.

arosar
16-02-2004, 04:01 PM
As it stands this event seems to have left itself open to ridicule: 'clubs' when ppl do not need to belong to those clubs, 3 females per team and the other commitments required really brings out the 'championship' standard clubs (I think not).

OK...just so readers don't get confused, I wasn't actually ridiculing this tourn. I actually agree with it for the most part - except the requirement to have 3 gals in the team.

The 'rubbiriness' that Paulie talked about (basically hiring mercenaries) obviously needs to be addressed. To me, the requirement to have 3 chicks on the side must force a 'club' to hire chess amazons - so that's one reason why I don't buy this requirement.

See, it's not the organisers fault that other clubs couldn't go.

AR

jenni
16-02-2004, 04:24 PM
I consider the title 'Australian Clubs Teams Championship' to be inappropriately named.

The posts on this subject suggest that the 'Australian Social Teams Tournament' would give a better indication of the type of event that was held.

As it stands this event seems to have left itself open to ridicule: 'clubs' when ppl do not need to belong to those clubs, 3 females per team and the other commitments required really brings out the 'championship' standard clubs (I think not).

Some ppl may be trying to promote the social side of chess (and/or increase female participation) with this event. As it seems to give them that fuzzy warm feeling about making a difference then perhaps we should not spoil their delusion - but when they use the championship title they reduce the value of other championship titles won by genuine champion players (I object).

Personally, I prefer Arosar's type of socialising - lightning chess in a pub: lots of fun games, more ppl exposed to chess in an exciting format. :) Also no need to pay over $1000 (flight & accomodation) and rely on other team members to all do likewise.

I suppose in order to give some idea of how different this event was from your normal stuffy clubs, Kerry and I have probably overdone the "fun" bit.

However don't think that there wasn't high quality chess played. On Board 1 you had Solomon, Rogers, Ronald Yu and David Smerdon playing (among others). Board 2 was Jonathan Humphrey, Justin Tan, Gareth Oliver, Ingela Erikkson, Phachara Wongwichit etc. and so it went down the boards - these are not bad players and they took their games very seriously.

The women included Ingela - rated over 2,000 and a contender for the Women's Olympiad team, 3 Aus Girls Champions (Heather Huddleston, Shannon Oliver and Angela Song), IA Cathy Rogers, Syvia Pleskot (ex Shields) - a very strong ex junior and many other of our up and coming girls. OK there were a few pretty bad ones as well (myself included), but on the whole it was an impressive collection.

Graeme has made it clear that over time, issues like club membership will be rigidly enforced, but at least it has started.

I think if we had clubs that were overflowing with members and a growing OTB culture, we could afford to ignore innovative ideas to make chess grow, but to be quite honest it is almost the opposite. There have been lots of threads on the BB on how to retain teenagers and young adults, but I have yet to see any really good strategies, which is why I support something like this that in one year seems to be generating enthusiasm among that age group.

The University team was the most blatant ragtag team. Many of the others had all genuine club members. Belconnen had one ring in - a boy from Indonesia, whom Graeme wantd to be able to play, so we offered to add him to our team. Otherwise we were pretty legitimate.

My only regret is that it is looking increasingly unlikely that Belconnen will be able to field a team this year, due to a clash with the last NECG training session - our plan was to get rid of the really weak members and add in many of BCC's top players, but it doesn't look as though it will happen.

jenni
16-02-2004, 04:34 PM
The reason I "reel out the bleedin' heart stories about some people not doing chess admin and how you lot are left to do all the bloody hard work" as you put it is simple. This is beacause I believe that the biggest problem in Australian chess is the lack of people doing the organising/admin work!!! See my posts in the thread I created in the old BB "The Biggest Problem in Chess".

I don't mean to sound as if "I am doing everything"! In fact I readily acknowledge (and have done so in other posts!) that there are others whose "chess admin workload" is 5 to 10 times that of mine! Just off the top of my head, some of the people in Sydney in this category would be Bill Gletsos, Charles Zworestine, Kerry Stead, Norm Greenwood, Peter Cassettari etc etc.



From my observations, most of the people who are currently doing chess admin work would be quite happy to let someone else do their work (or some of their work). The reason they usually do it is because nobody else will!

.

I think what you see here is a clash of cultures. We are not really talking about "administration" we are talking about "volunteering".

For some cultures volunteering is a totally foreign thing, for others it is so normal that you couldn't sleep at night if you weren't "doing your bit".

I tend to agree with Starter that you have to create a culture of volunteering and the right place to start is with the young.

The ACTJCL enforced a certain level of volunteering last year - if you wanted your kid in the dev squad you took on a job. However where teeagers were concerned, we were quite happy to have the parent pass on the job to the teenager. So we had some of the kids in the Dev Squad actually running minor tournaments or taking on a lot of work of getting the uniforms embroidered etc.

Our teenagers have been taking on coaching roles for the last few years, but we are now givng them admin jobs to do as well. e.g. Jeremy Reading and Shannon are now running Norths Junior Chess Club between them. We hope that we are thus not only training the kids in chess, but creating a "volunteering" ethic as well.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 06:05 PM
What crap! Just because Sydney weren't able to muster a half decent side and because the Sunshine Coast is a bit too nice, it doesn't stand on its own merit?
As usual the only person sprouting crap is you.
A Sydney team won the comp and a Sydney team came second and they were both well clear of third place.


This is yet another example of ACF Sydney-centric myopia.
Given Paul S does not speak for the ACF how can his views be ACF Sydney-centric.[/quote]


As for rubberiness, a degree of this happens in all sports. How many All Blacks are from NZ, how many olympic athletes has Australia recruited from overseas? The tournament stands as a beacon for Australian Chess, open your eyes Paul.
It stands as a worthwhile and interesting tournament.
Whether its an actual beacon is still to be determined.

chesslover
16-02-2004, 06:42 PM
As usual the only person sprouting crap is you.
A Sydney team won the comp and a Sydney team came second and they were both well clear of third place.


That is not nice.

david has done nothing to deserve such a rude rebuke, and I am upset for him
:mad: :mad:

If you thought that he was wrong, instead of using words like "as usual" "sprouting crap", you could have said that he was just wrong, and stated why...

I feel bad that such a sensible and intelligent man like he is getting blasted. He is a Dr for heaven's sake, and does not deserve this :mad:

chesslover
16-02-2004, 06:59 PM
I suppose in order to give some idea of how different this event was from your normal stuffy clubs, Kerry and I have probably overdone the "fun" bit.

However don't think that there wasn't high quality chess played. On Board 1 you had Solomon, Rogers, Ronald Yu and David Smerdon playing (among others). Board 2 was Jonathan Humphrey, Justin Tan, Gareth Oliver, Ingela Erikkson, Phachara Wongwichit etc. and so it went down the boards - these are not bad players and they took their games very seriously.

The women included Ingela - rated over 2,000 and a contender for the Women's Olympiad team, 3 Aus Girls Champions (Heather Huddleston, Shannon Oliver and Angela Song), IA Cathy Rogers, Syvia Pleskot (ex Shields) - a very strong ex junior and many other of our up and coming girls. OK there were a few pretty bad ones as well (myself included), but on the whole it was an impressive collection.

Graeme has made it clear that over time, issues like club membership will be rigidly enforced, but at least it has started.

I think if we had clubs that were overflowing with members and a growing OTB culture, we could afford to ignore innovative ideas to make chess grow, but to be quite honest it is almost the opposite. There have been lots of threads on the BB on how to retain teenagers and young adults, but I have yet to see any really good strategies, which is why I support something like this that in one year seems to be generating enthusiasm among that age group.

The University team was the most blatant ragtag team. Many of the others had all genuine club members. Belconnen had one ring in - a boy from Indonesia, whom Graeme wantd to be able to play, so we offered to add him to our team. Otherwise we were pretty legitimate.

My only regret is that it is looking increasingly unlikely that Belconnen will be able to field a team this year, due to a clash with the last NECG training session - our plan was to get rid of the really weak members and add in many of BCC's top players, but it doesn't look as though it will happen.

Jenni,

That is a good post

In my mind, there are 4 issues that this thread has brought to the fore

1. Is this an official ACF title event? the by-laws in the ACF website seems to indicate that it is not, but Kevin remembers it being passed by the ACF Council, so the simplest explanation is that it is a title event and has been approved by the ACF - and the website by-laws have not been updated.

If this has not been passed by the ACF, then this whole thread and the advertising of the event is moot, for it is not an official ACF title even

2. Assuming that it is an ACF title event, should it be?

There are 3 factors I believe to this

2a. It is advertised as a title event, and regardless of teh quality and quantity of the teams, the winner is entitled to the official title - Aust Club Team Champs. Like Kerry quite rightly stated if there was an Aust Champs, and GMs and IMs did not come, that in no way should affect the winner of the weakened Aust Champs to call themself the Aust Champs. Very few would argue with this

2b. Should there be a restriction on the composistion of the club team? Arosar stated that teh requirement of having 3 females was not quite right, and I can see both sides of the arguement. Yes you want female representation, yes you want to increase social interaction, yes you want to promote an inclusive chess team that is representative of society - but shoudl you prescribe that?

In the Olympiad the only females who are there are those who are good enough to compete with the men of their country on equal basis. I beleive that there are good arguements for this, and anyway people like Ms Wallace, Mrs Rogers etc will eb good enough to make the top 8 of their local clubs on their own.

The other question that this brings is that if you are going to prescribe the minimum number of females, why not prescribe the minimum numner of juniors and for that matter a senior?

2c. The fact that the people who play for the club, are not regular members of the club. This to me is the strongest reason why the team that wins in the Sunshine coast should not be the winner of an official ACF Title event - the Aust Club Teams Champs, as the people who played for that club are not really members of these clubs

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 07:02 PM
That is not nice.

david has done nothing to deserve such a rude rebuke, and I am upset for him
:mad: :mad:

If you thought that he was wrong, instead of using words like "as usual" "sprouting crap", you could have said that he was just wrong, and stated why...

I feel bad that such a sensible and intelligent man like he is getting blasted. He is a Dr for heaven's sake, and does not deserve this :mad:
Pay attention cretin.
I would have thought the following would have been obvious even to a dumbass (this description courtesy of Jeo ;) ) like you.
David called Paul Sikes post crap.
As such his post is equally entitled to be called crap.

Since in the past David has posted equally crappy posts then that makes this a case of "as usual".

Being a doctor earns him respect on medical matters.
On everything else he gets judged on the content of what he posts.

skip to my lou
16-02-2004, 07:22 PM
Pay attention cretin.
I would have thought the following would have been obvious even to a dumbass (this description courtesy of Jeo ;) ) like you.
David called Paul Sikes post crap.
As such his post is equally entitled to be called crap.

Since in the past David has posted equally crappy posts then that makes this a case of "as usual".

Being a doctor earns him respect on medical matters.
On everything else he gets judged on the content of what he posts.


I called him a dumbass because:

1) He assumes anything he wants/needs to assume.
2) Often his arguments are invalid, stupid and have no factual backup.
3) You cannot change his mind, even if what he is thinking is wrong. His point of view is the only point of view, full stop. If you prove that he is wrong, he just wont reply. A really stupid way of admitting defeat.
4) He uses :mad: too much.
5) He talks to himself.
6) He cried because someone nominated his post.
7) He quotes posts and talks about something totally irrelavant.

PHAT
16-02-2004, 07:44 PM
So, you behave like a silly dork, dress badly, etc.

AR

At the last Fairfield, after a quick defeat, I surruptitiously made a study of players' apparrel. From memory:

Entries 88
~62 the kind of sports shoe that looks like an orthopedic prosthesis.
37 T-shirts (5 with obvious rips!)
8 silly hats - ie balball caps (4 worn at the table.)
~20 sports/track type zip-up tops.
3 white shoes.
4 cardigans
~third had not shaved that day (of those would need to.)

I went into the main club areas and looked about. A smokey beer stinking acre of losers; zombied in front of pokies, drinking p.ss, smoking and watching someone else scoring tries. Their personal presentation was very similar to those serious chess players in the clean, quiet, sober, chess room.

If we want people to take chess seriously, player dress codes should be on the agenda.
Look at lawn bowls
Look at billiards
Look at cricket
Look at tenis
Look at chess - on second thoughts, you don't have to because you will never see any Australian chess event broardcast on TV with the way these pigs dress.

And don't anyone say they cannot afford it. Everyone of those players has a collered shirt in their wardrobe and a razer in the bathroom.

PHAT
16-02-2004, 07:50 PM
Paul S.

Just put on two new helpers (see Box Hill Autumn Cup thread). One to become Whitehorse Treasurer (he is under 15) and the other on the VIC OPEN organising committee, he is U18.



That is what I want the NSWCA to do. rope in some juniors to do "stuff" in exchange for free entry to all NSWCA events. I will be banging on about it again at the next NSWCA meeting.

chesslover
16-02-2004, 07:55 PM
I called him a dumbass because:

1) He assumes anything he wants/needs to assume.
2) Often his arguments are invalid, stupid and have no factual backup.
3) You cannot change his mind, even if what he is thinking is wrong. His point of view is the only point of view, full stop. If you prove that he is wrong, he just wont reply. A really stupid way of admitting defeat.
4) He uses :mad: too much.
5) He talks to himself.
6) He cried because someone nominated his post.
7) He quotes posts and talks about something totally irrelavant.

have i ever been insulting to you delibertely? have I ever abused you? have I ever been rude to you on purpose? I have always been highly supportive and appreciative of this BB of your and it's features

I have dealt with you on polite terms. even when some have gone on flaming wars with you. Yet you see fit to insult and pour scorn on me

I have feelings too....

Insult me if that is your wish, but my respect for you has been diminished. And if you do not care - fine

chesslover
16-02-2004, 08:03 PM
That is what I want the NSWCA to do. rope in some juniors to do "stuff" in exchange for free entry to all NSWCA events. I will be banging on about it again at the next NSWCA meeting.

dont you have to see first if Bill is agreeable to this idea? ;)

If you can convince Supreme Leader then you are halfway there :p

skip to my lou
16-02-2004, 08:12 PM
As Bruce Willis once said "When you've finished feeling sorry for yourself, the doors that way". It was in that movie, last night. :eek:

Man, just consider the points that I have stated and bloody work on not doing it in the future.

When I try and deal with you politely, you just dont reply. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Rincewind
16-02-2004, 09:08 PM
If we want people to take chess seriously, player dress codes should be on the agenda.

This from the man who try to introduce a nude interclub chess match.

Don't you think dress codes reinforce an out-moded social stereo-type? People are not what they dress, or how they dress. I say, "let them play and let Chess, not apparel, decide if they are worthy of scrutiny!"

ursogr8
16-02-2004, 09:12 PM
That is what I want the NSWCA to do. rope in some juniors to do "stuff" in exchange for free entry to all NSWCA events. I will be banging on about it again at the next NSWCA meeting.

Give it a try Matt.
Probably is a degree easier for us because we are doing the arm-twisting at Club level, but possible at any level if handled well.

BTW, don't forget the other 'volunteer'; the guy from Centrelink, working through his community obligation. Ours runs computers and equipment set-up for 3 out of 3 sessions every week.

And we appointed another on Sunday at the Rookies Cup. This was a mum who wanted accelerated membership (for the junior) from our waiting list. The quid pro quo is that she agreed to run the roster system for the parents who the man/woman the Tea Club (set roster, distribute roster, ring rostered person weekly, buy provisions).

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 09:53 PM
dont you have to see first if Bill is agreeable to this idea? ;)

If you can convince Supreme Leader then you are halfway there :p
Nope, Matt just has to convince a majority on Council.

chesslover
16-02-2004, 09:59 PM
Give it a try Matt.
Probably is a degree easier for us because we are doing the arm-twisting at Club level, but possible at any level if handled well.

And we appointed another on Sunday at the Rookies Cup. This was a mum who wanted accelerated membership (for the junior) from our waiting list. The quid pro quo is that she agreed to run the roster system for the parents who the man/woman the Tea Club (set roster, distribute roster, ring rostered person weekly, buy provisions).

starter

I applaud you on your lateral thinking, but is it not kind of blackmail? :p

Your son/daughter will be able to get membership quicker, IF you do this for the club? ;)

chesslover
16-02-2004, 10:03 PM
This from the man who try to introduce a nude interclub chess match.

Don't you think dress codes reinforce an out-moded social stereo-type? People are not what they dress, or how they dress. I say, "let them play and let Chess, not apparel, decide if they are worthy of scrutiny!"

and to think that the man who wants dress codes, has a unique "hygiene" policy!!! ;)

But I say let Matt be. he is an independent free thinker, who roams free and lets the spirit guide hsi thoughts sometimes. We all need a little matt in our lives, to live life to the fullest

Garvinator
16-02-2004, 10:08 PM
so much for actually suggesting ways to improve the australian clubs team championship.

And paul s reckons that the lack of helpers is the biggest problem in chess. Well I dont agree at all, yes it is one of the problems, but not the biggest one.

there was a great opportunity from this thread to really make this tournament one of australias best and what has been acheived in terms of worthwhile ideas at the moment, not a damn lot.

So what is the biggest problem in chess in my opinion, in my opinion it is:

1) personality clashes: as has been seen from the cv/mcc debacle and from alot of the threads on the bb, most administrators are more concerned about proving the other person wrong, than trying to move ideas forward. Look how many threads on here just turn into name calling/slanging matches.

As i said on in the cv/mcc debacle, why would anyone new to the chess scene want to volunteer their time when this trash is what they have to put up with?

Cat
17-02-2004, 12:00 AM
[
QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]As usual the only person sprouting crap is you.
A Sydney team won the comp and a Sydney team came second and they were both well clear of third place.

Fair call, my apologies Paul, I didn't intend offence, just that it does sound a little patronising to suggest the location de-merits the competition. From 'up here' some of the debates have certainly sounded Sydney-centric.

Yes, the Sydney University Team won the competition Bill but earlier posts had bemoaned the lack of Sydney club representation. Again this makes no difference to the legitimacy of the event. I know this was a lot to follow Bill, next time I'll add some smilies just for you :p

Thanks for pointing out my careless manner of speech. Does this mean you'll be dusting down your frontal lobes and demonstrating new levels of decency and behaviour? This will indeed be a welcome change. Lets all try to keep to the same standard, eh? :clap:

skip to my lou
17-02-2004, 12:06 AM
chesslover you dolt. Another case of "'dumbass' not detected, skip message"?

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 06:55 AM
I applaud you on your lateral thinking, but is it not kind of blackmail? :p

Your son/daughter will be able to get membership quicker, IF you do this for the club? ;)

CL
Did you check the dictionary first before you posted?
Blackmail involves intimidation.
Our offer was just that, an offer. Easily refused.
starter

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 07:03 AM
so much for actually suggesting ways to improve the australian clubs team championship.

And paul s reckons that the lack of helpers is the biggest problem in chess. Well I dont agree at all, yes it is one of the problems, but not the biggest one.

there was a great opportunity from this thread to really make this tournament one of australias best and what has been acheived in terms of worthwhile ideas at the moment, not a damn lot.

So what is the biggest problem in chess in my opinion, in my opinion it is:

1) personality clashes: as has been seen from the cv/mcc debacle and from alot of the threads on the bb, most administrators are more concerned about proving the other person wrong, than trying to move ideas forward. Look how many threads on here just turn into name calling/slanging matches.

As i said on in the cv/mcc debacle, why would anyone new to the chess scene want to volunteer their time when this trash is what they have to put up with?

g'g'
The CV/MCC threads had clashes, and were in some way due to tensions built up over 20 years. The bulletin board aired these tensions and found that there were cases to answer.
Certainly jammo offered an olive branch that was generous from his point of view. MCC reps (fg7 and WBA) have either accepted or given up in disgust. So something has been achieved towards harmony.
Personality clashes abound, but managing to get volunteers remains the core problem. Discussion probably belongs on its own thread if you want to pursue.
starter

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2004, 01:42 PM
Yes, the Sydney University Team won the competition Bill but earlier posts had bemoaned the lack of Sydney club representation. Again this makes no difference to the legitimacy of the event. I know this was a lot to follow Bill, next time I'll add some smilies just for you :p
I followed the whole thread dipstick so dont try and be condescending.
In fact you should have noticed I didnt support those criticising the event.
You statement to Paul S which you called crap was however incorrect.
I just pointed out that your reply was equally crappy.


Thanks for pointing out my careless manner of speech. Does this mean you'll be dusting down your frontal lobes and demonstrating new levels of decency and behaviour? This will indeed be a welcome change. Lets all try to keep to the same standard, eh? :clap:
I was not picking on your manner of speech rather your sprouting of incorrect statements.
I'll be maintaining my usual level of response. :hand:

Cat
17-02-2004, 02:15 PM
I followed the whole thread dipstick so dont try and be condescending.
In fact you should have noticed I didnt support those criticising the event.
You statement to Paul S which you called crap was however incorrect.
I just pointed out that your reply was equally crappy.


I was not picking on your manner of speech rather your sprouting of incorrect statements.
I'll be maintaining my usual level of response. :hand:

Good try Bill, but you've got to work a little harder at it. This quote is a neural reflex mediated through the brain stem. You need to access your forebrain through your higher cortical centres. We know your higher cortical centres exist because we've seen glimpses of them. The trouble is that if the forebrain isnt exercised regularly it can atrophy - the old saying 'if you don't use it you lose it'. Keep practising though, because in most cases this function is retrievable. Say to yourself 'forebrain not hindbrain' over and over and over again.

chesslover
18-02-2004, 07:23 PM
CL
Did you check the dictionary first before you posted?
Blackmail involves intimidation.
Our offer was just that, an offer. Easily refused.
starter
i was just trying to be witty - hence my wink at you!!

but yes - that is very good lateral thinking starter, with that "offer" - it is simply an offer that cannot be refused!!! :p

PHAT
18-02-2004, 08:30 PM
I say, "let them play and let Chess, not apparel, decide if they are worthy of scrutiny!"

And we certainly would not want to judge people by their less than dignified behaviour either, Bazza? Tsk Tsk, and this "apparel" comment above from the man who, somewhat out of character, last night brought ten games to a similtainious halt by screaming "F***!!!!!!!!!!" upon being checkmated in a time scramble. ;)

Rincewind
18-02-2004, 08:48 PM
And we certainly would not want to judge people by their less than dignified behaviour either, Bazza? Tsk Tsk, and this "apparel" comment above from the man who, somewhat out of character, last night brought ten games to a similtainious halt by screaming "F***!!!!!!!!!!" upon being checkmated in a time scramble. ;)

You should get your hearing checked. It was definitely a stifled, primordeal scream/grunt. No profanity was articulated.

Also check your numeracy skills. 19 players means 9 games per round of which I was one and at least one other was deferred so no more than seven games were disrupted. However, you are right the outburst was unacceptable, however short.

Extremely disappointing game by the way. I was up a bishop and several pawns. My opponents only counterplay was a pawn which only my bishop could stop. I played the bishop to the wrong square. I saw the right square three moves ealier, but in the middle of playing the variation I decided the other way was equivalent, it wasn't. :(

Such is the way of rapid chess I guess.


BTW

I fail to see the difference between this and apparel though. It smacks of just taking a cheap shot to me. I thought you were more considered and less opportunistic than that.

PHAT
18-02-2004, 09:33 PM
You should get your hearing checked. It was definitely a stifled, primordeal scream/grunt. No profanity was articulated.


We hear what we want to hear.


Also check your numeracy skills. 19 players means 9 games per round of which I was one and at least one other was deferred so no more than seven games were disrupted.


Plus a few social games maybe. 8, 9, 10, not too far off.



However, you are right the outburst was unacceptable, however short.


Don't sweat it. Peter of the "I Lost My Quality" [Wollongong in-joke.], provides 10 to 20 times your disruption every night. Besides that, I think you provided a quality and entertaining interlude.


It smacks of just taking a cheap shot to me. I thought you were more considered and less opportunistic than that.

No :lol:

Rincewind
18-02-2004, 11:16 PM
We hear what we want to hear.

Now you are starting to sound like Goughfather.


Plus a few social games maybe. 8, 9, 10, not too far off.

Not as many as that, and I think I was generous with my estimate as a number of games were already finished judging by the number of kibitzers hovering at the time of my blunder.


Don't sweat it. Peter of the "I Lost My Quality" [Wollongong in-joke.], provides 10 to 20 times your disruption every night. Besides that, I think you provided a quality and entertaining interlude.

Such outbursts are an unfortunate consequence of rapid chess especially with guillotine finishes. However, Peter's disgraceful behaviour shouldn't lower anyone else's standards of conduct. He brings himself and chess into disrepute. As an aside, I think he should not be tolerated in the playing area during club tournaments.


No :lol:

IC. I will have to be more circumspect in future.

chesslover
25-02-2004, 11:14 PM
that's a bit nasty. somebody's been doing too much neurology...

not really

given some of the unfair attacks that poor David has copped from Bill, I think it was a rather witty and funny counter attack by david. I found it just and a very measured and appropriate response - noty too much, not too little, just right!!! :p

samspade
25-02-2004, 11:15 PM
Oh OK, I get ya Paulie. I tell ya mate, no offence, but as soon as I walk into Canterbury, I swear, I feel like I've just walked into the chess championships of the living dead.

AR
I ditto that. Spot on. General lack of atmosphere.

PHAT
26-02-2004, 06:59 AM
The atmosphere is what you make it. You choose to be happily playing chess or not happily. If the social aspect is lacking, take a few friends and enliven the atmosphere - you could actually start the ball rolling.

Constructive critisism destroys destructivity.