PDA

View Full Version : City of Sydney Championship



samspade
21-02-2004, 12:25 AM
I would like to express my disappointment that such a drastic change was made to the format of the city of sydney championship, changing it from one game a day to two games a day. While I acknowledge that it was maybe necessary to accomodate other tournaments as there is a quite crowded schedule this year, I feel the change introduced has only served to cheapen the status of an important tournament.

In addition, as far as I am aware no one saw fit to look into whether the players themselves were interested in playing a tournament which (except the final day) could last from 11am to potentially 7pm, or even later.

Although this will no doubt please some chessnuts who can think of nothing better to do with their weekend than just play chess anyway, I can't help thinking that other people who are not quite so single-minded may be unenthusiastic about the prospect, especially those with families. While I myself am a relatively active chessplayer, the format of the tournament is such that I consider it is only a barely feasible option for me to play. I suspect that the playing schedule will disaffect those of us who think that having to play two (usually) quite long chess games in one day for four consecutive sundays is a tad unreasonable.

Paul S
21-02-2004, 08:03 AM
In addition, as far as I am aware no one saw fit to look into whether the majority of players themselves were interested in playing a tournament which (excluding the final day) could last from 11am to potentially 7pm, or even later.



I suspect that the playing schedule will disaffect those of us who think that having to play two (usually) quite long chess games in one day for four consecutive sundays is a tad unreasonable.

Hey, Sam. You would have loved the daily schedule for the NSWCA 2004 Australia Day Weekender! ;) (Registration plus 3 rounds of 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move per player on the Saturday followed by 3 rounds of 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move per player and Presentation on the Sunday!). On Sunday the first round for the day (round 4 of the tournament) started at 9.30am and the Presentation finished around 11.30pm - 14 hours in total!

By comparison, the daily attendance requirement for players for the 2004 City of Sydney is short!!! :lol:

PHAT
21-02-2004, 10:25 AM
Sam Spade,

I am not replying as an official of the NSWCA but as an ordinary member.

I fully understand your disappointment that the CSC format has changed to something that may not be some players' cup or tea. I too get disappointed when things change away from something that was working fine for me. However, the NSWCA has done two highly responable things this year:

1. Run an in depth survey sent to all members, on "what players want".
2. Put its faith in Ralph Sebry as the Tournament Coordinator.

I do not want to put words in Ralph's mouth but it is safe to say that his mission statement goes something like this: Provide a large variety of chess events because not every style suits every player.

The NSWCA puts on more events and of a greater variety than any other state. Surely one of them - grade matches, NSW C/ship, weekenders, rapids et cetera - fits your style? Nevertheless, if you would like to add another to our calender, you will be heartily greeted and supported in a number of ways to make it a successful event.

Bill Gletsos
21-02-2004, 12:10 PM
What Matt says is completely correct.

It was however decided last year prior to Ralph being elected at the AGM to try a different format for the City of Sydney.
The format for this year is based on a successful format used in 1995. The only difference then was it was played over 6 weekends not 5 and was 11 rounds not 9. It was played at the City bowling club opposite Hyde park and ran from 10am in the monring to 6.30pm in the evening. The time limit was 40 in 90 mins then 30 mins to finish. 80 players competed over 2 divisions. The top division had 42 players, the U1600 event 38.

1992 7 rounds with 63 players over 4 division.
1993 7 rounds with 80 players over 4 divisions. The Open and U1800 was run on Sundays, the U1600 and U1400 on Saturdays.
1994 7 rounds with 94 players over 4 divisions. The Open and U1800 was run on Saturdays, the U1600 and U1400 on Sundays.
1995 11 rounds over 6 Sundays. 80 players over 2 divisions.
1996 9 rounds with 66 players over 2 divisions.
1997 9 rounds with 58 players over 2 divisions.
1998 9 rounds with 45 players over 1 division.
1999 9 rounds with 60 players over 2 divisions.
2000 9 rounds with 70 players over 2 divisions.
2001 9 rounds with 93 players over 2 divisions.
2002 9 rounds with 55 players over 2 divisions.
2003 9 rounds with 60 players over 2 divisions.

Bill Gletsos
21-02-2004, 12:14 PM
While I acknowledge that it was felt that it was necessary to accomodate other tournaments as there was apparently a quite crowded schedule this year
I do not believe that was ever a consideration at the time the decision was taken to change it to 5 weekends instead of 9. It was much later that it was decided to add additional events to the 4 weekends that then became "free".

Paul S
21-02-2004, 01:15 PM
As I see it, with longer time limit games (eg 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move per player), one round per Sunday over 9 weeks has the advantages of enabling players who are time poor (can only spare half a day a weekend playing chess) to be able to play. It also has the advantage in that players (especially those whose games finish early!) do not have to wait around killing time for the next round to start. The overall quality of chess in the tournament is higher, as players only have one game per day to concentrate on.

Two rounds per day has the advantages of making it more worthwhile for players who live a long distance from the tournament (eg Matthew in Wollongong) to play in it, viz it makes more sense for them to travel a long distance for 2 games of chess over 5 weeks (Sundays) instead of for one game of chess over 9 weeks (Sundays). Two rounds per day has the advantages of significant cost savings on rent and DOP fees (meaning more prizemoney!).

Overall the advantages and disadvantages of one vs two 2 rounds per day more or less cancel each other out (although I think there is a slight advantage in having 2 rounds per day).

Therefore, IMHO it makes sense to have the City of Sydney with 2 rounds per day and the NSW Championships with one round per day (or vice versa).

Paul S
21-02-2004, 01:31 PM
I do not want to put words in Ralph's mouth but it is safe to say that his mission statement goes something like this: Provide a large variety of chess events because not every style suits every player.


This seems like a sensible policy. Indeed, you cannot please every chess player (and it would be foolish to try)! A bit of variety sounds good, with some tournaments with shorter time limits (1 hour per player or similar time limits) and some time tournaments with longer time limits (2 to 2.5 hours per player or similar time limits), with occasional rapidplay and lightning comps here and there.

Having said that, I disagree with the format for this year's NSWCA Australia Day Weekender - I've already said enough on this in another thread, so I will not say any more on this matter (BTW, what happened to the emoticon for "lips sealed/no comment"?).


The NSWCA puts on more events and of a greater variety than any other state. Surely one of them - grade matches, NSW C/ship, weekenders, rapids et cetera - fits your style?

I'm sure there is. As per my previous post, I suggest the NSWCA runs the NSW Championships 1 round per week over 9 weeks (ie as per last year).

Paul S
21-02-2004, 01:43 PM
While I acknowledge that it was felt that it was necessary to accomodate other tournaments as there was apparently a quite crowded schedule this year



I do not believe that was ever a consideration at the time the decision was taken to change it to 5 weekends instead of 9. It was much later that it was decided to add additional events to the 4 weekends that then became "free".

That is my recollection aswell (I was on last year's NSWCA Council).

Forevergm
21-02-2004, 03:04 PM
I would just like to say that this year's format really doesnt suit me at all. I am in year 11 this year and i try to get all my work done during the weekends. I have sport every Saturday for school and that takes up quite a few hours. If i play in this year's City of Sydney i would have no time left to do any work on Sunday. Also i feel that playing two games a day in such an important tournament doesnt suit me. I have decided not to play in this year's City of Sydney as a result.

PHAT
21-02-2004, 03:13 PM
I would just like to say that this year's format really doesnt suit me at all. I am in year 11 this year and i try to get all my work done during the weekends. I have sport every Saturday for school and that takes up quite a few hours. If i play in this year's City of Sydney i would have no time left to do any work on Sunday.

Poor poor didums :boohoo: It must be quite a shock to a tender 16 year old to find out that you can't do everything. Welcome to the real world.:rolleyes:

Forevergm
21-02-2004, 03:32 PM
Poor poor didums :boohoo: It must be quite a shock to a tender 16 year old to find out that you can't do everything. Welcome to the real world.:rolleyes:

Thats why i have decided against defending my City of Sydney title and instead spend the 8-10 hours at home.

arosar
21-02-2004, 03:48 PM
The proposed format is superior to the 9-week one (see Paulie's above). Next step: a 5-day State Champs!

AR

PHAT
21-02-2004, 04:23 PM
Thats why i have decided against defending my City of Sydney title and instead spend the 8-10 hours at home.

Actually, that is not a good excuse, let alone a reason.

(90m/30sec + travelling time[15m*2]) * 9 sundays = 40.50 hours over 9 weeks

(11am to 8pm + travel) * 4 +
(11am to 3pm + travel) * 1 = 41.25 hours over 5 weeks

It certainly be the extra 45 minutes keeping you away :eek:

Just say that you can manage your chess time but you cannot manage your life.

You see, few if any, adults take schoolies seriously when they complain about having a 25 hour day. Wait until you have to start full time work, and living out of home. Before then, there is no excuse for not defending your title.

jenni
21-02-2004, 05:49 PM
Actually, that is not a good excuse, let alone a reason.

(90m/30sec + travelling time[15m*2]) * 9 sundays = 40.50 hours over 9 weeks

(11am to 8pm + travel) * 4 +
(11am to 3pm + travel) * 1 = 41.25 hours over 5 weeks

It certainly be the extra 45 minutes keeping you away :eek:

Just say that you can manage your chess time but you cannot manage your life.

You see, few if any, adults take schoolies seriously when they complain about having a 25 hour day. Wait until you have to start full time work, and living out of home. Before then, there is no excuse for not defending your title.

Give him a break Matt - he's only a kid. He will learn, but at the moment life probably does fell very stressful.

Garvinator
21-02-2004, 05:57 PM
Give him a break Matt - he's only a kid. He will learn, but at the moment life probably does fell very stressful.
any person regardless of age who gives their opinion on how a tournament should be run and why they didnt play then deserves to have their opinion challenged.

PHAT
21-02-2004, 06:01 PM
Give him a break Matt - he's only a kid. He will learn, but at the moment life probably does fell very stressful.

Why should I give him a break? He plays top chess against top adults and wins adult money. If he wants to play with the big boys has has to cop a bit of a ribbing like the big boys. Being pink and fluffy with older juniors is plain patronising - as it is for females.

jenni
21-02-2004, 06:38 PM
any person regardless of age who gives their opinion on how a tournament should be run and why they didnt play then deserves to have their opinion challenged.

Deserves to have thier opinion challengd yes, but not a personal attack! (as in "cannot manage your life") First part was fine - why bring the rest into it!

jenni
21-02-2004, 06:39 PM
Why should I give him a break? He plays top chess against top adults and wins adult money. If he wants to play with the big boys has has to cop a bit of a ribbing like the big boys. Being pink and fluffy with older juniors is plain patronising - as it is for females.
sigh!

samspade
21-02-2004, 07:57 PM
The proposed format is superior to the 9-week one (see Paulie's above). Next step: a 5-day State Champs!

AR
Good grief no!

jase
21-02-2004, 10:04 PM
Why should I give him a break? He plays top chess against top adults and wins adult money. If he wants to play with the big boys has has to cop a bit of a ribbing like the big boys.

Matt, Reading this thread I was going to send you a PM to compliment you on your posts until I got up to this diversion.

You should give him a break because personal insults have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Challenge his point of view by all means, but lose the notion that you have the slightest clue about his life.
You should give him a break because he's a junior. In my presence your interaction with your daughters is of a different tone to with adults. It's not patronising, it's understanding.
You should give him a break because we need more people like Ronald participating in this forum. Presently so many threads descend into personal insults that there is a very small number of contributors to the board.

Whilst your time required comparison is valid, it does not address Ronald's situation. He's got heaps of homework on weekends and would have only Saturday afternoons in which to do it. Perhaps you have observed how relatively few juniors in Years 11 and 12 compete in tournaments?

Which is not to say I disagree with the City of Sydney format. I like it, for the reasons you have already outlined. But I can also understand why it's not a good format for Ronald, or Sam Spade [if he's who I think he is].

Bill Gletsos
21-02-2004, 10:19 PM
Good grief no!
I wouldn't worry about that because personally I cannot see it happening.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2004, 10:55 PM
Whilst your time required comparison is valid, it does not address Ronald's situation. He's got heaps of homework on weekends and would have only Saturday afternoons in which to do it. Perhaps you have observed how relatively few juniors in Years 11 and 12 compete in tournaments?

Interesting how people are talking about how Ronald should balance chess with homework but everyone's just taking the other weekend activity (school sport) for granted.

I assume Ronald reckons he gets enough chess in other events anyway and opportunities to compete in school sport are comparatively limited; if so, that's fair enough.

I'm going to say something generally about chess vs physical sport but probably best put on a new thread rather than one for a specific tournament.

jase
21-02-2004, 11:01 PM
Interesting how people are talking about how Ronald should balance chess with homework but everyone's just taking the other weekend activity (school sport) for granted.


I think it's taken for granted because it's compulsory.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2004, 11:38 PM
I think it's taken for granted because it's compulsory.

And Houston, we have a problem right there (if that's the case). The thread I've put up to discuss this stuff is here:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=418

jase
22-02-2004, 01:08 AM
Apollo, this is Houston.

Whilst you've been orbitting the earth, a whole new set of buzz words have entered the lexicon, like 'time rich'.

Where a tournament soaks up a whole day, having previously only consumed 3-4 hours, some competitors will appreciate that chance to play a couple of games, instead of just one, whilst others who have other commitments, may be unable to commit a whole Sunday to chess.

Might explain why so many more people prefer evening club grade matches to weekend tournaments.

PHAT
22-02-2004, 07:19 AM
Ronald Yu,

It was not my intention to "insult" you, and I do not believe that I have. I am however, making a point that playing the CSC it is a matter of time management. Furthermore, I support this view be reminding you, that you can make special arrangements with teachers who are always ready to accomodate.

I stand by my orginal statement that you can manage your OTB chess time but you cannot manage your life - yet. Prove me wrong, defend your title.

BTW, To all: Is Forevergm realy Ronald Yu? How can we know? Is FGM pulling our legs? Is there a real RY out there who would like to put the record straight? This is one reason why anonomous posting should be discouraged.

Rincewind
22-02-2004, 09:15 AM
BTW, To all: Is Forevergm realy Ronald Yu? How can we know? Is FGM pulling our legs? Is there a real RY out there who would like to put the record straight? This is one reason why anonomous posting should be discouraged.

I believe Ronald Yu has posted before on the old BBs using ForeverGM and he certainly hasn't said anything to make me think it might NOT be him. Reverse inference can be a powerful tool - just ask Goughfather. ;)

How do we know 'Matthew Sweeney' is really 'Matthew Sweeney'? Or how would anyone in Vic know?

arosar
22-02-2004, 09:38 AM
I can confirm. Forevergm is RY.

AR

peanbrain
22-02-2004, 10:43 AM
I stand by my orginal statement that you can manage your OTB chess time but you cannot manage your life - yet. Prove me wrong, defend your title.


He is MANAGING his life! He's managing it by deciding not to play this time round. Who are you to tell him what he should do Mr Sweeney?! :hmm:

This kid has achieved more than most of us with his OTB chess so I would not be surprised that he is managing his life better than most of us. Unless you know his personal situations and the challenges he has to deal with, stop making assumptions!

As for you matt - what you teach your kids are your business, but stop trying to teach others how they should live their lives!! :doh:

jenni
22-02-2004, 11:14 AM
Ronald Yu,

It was not my intention to "insult" you, and I do not believe that I have. I am however, making a point that playing the CSC it is a matter of time management. Furthermore, I support this view be reminding you, that you can make special arrangements with teachers who are always ready to accomodate.


I don't know what the system is like in NSW - obviously a bit different, because we don't have HSC and have continual assesment from the beginning of year 11. However it would certainly be impossible to get an extension for an assignment in the ACT, based on a weekend activity.

Assignments have to be handed in on due date and there is a 10% penalty per day for late assignments. Nothing short of a major family crisis or illness (doctor's certificate required) would allow this penalty to be waived. Extensions can be given, but are not easily given, except in the circumstances just outlined.

While your adding up of the time in a previous post looked very convincing, what it doesn't take into account is the time crtiticalness of it all. I.e if you are given 5 assignements to do, all due in week 3 and 4 of the comp, then the fact that there will be heaps of free time available once the comp finishes, doesn't help.

I think Ronald has to make a choice (and I am all in favour of kids making choices and learning they can't do everything), but I can see why it is affecting him and I don't believe it is lack of time management. He will however have plenty of years left to win the comp again once he has finished year 11 and 12.

PHAT
22-02-2004, 12:45 PM
As for you matt - what you teach your kids are your business, but stop trying to teach others how they should live their lives!! :doh:


It takes a whole village to raise one child.


AND stop trying to teach me how I should live my life. If I think it is reasonable in specific circumstances to bag a person for not defending their title, I can/do/will do it.


Furthermore, 4everGMhas stated his reasons for piking and I don't buy it. You, Jenni and Jase are cooing-on, by saying "Oo, oo, poor boy. Big bad Matt doesn't know what what might be going on in a year 11's life." Sorry, but RY told us what is going on in his life - he is going to school ..... OMG!, maybe we should take up a collection or have a fund raiser.

PHAT
22-02-2004, 12:55 PM
While your adding up of the time in a previous post looked very convincing, what it doesn't take into account is the time crtiticalness of it all. I.e if you are given 5 assignements to do, all due in week 3 and 4 of the comp, then the fact that there will be heaps of free time available once the comp finishes, doesn't help.



This is a no brainer. RY could:

1. Hand stuff in early.
2. In the 1 to 3 hours between morning and arvo games, do his homework in the hall. We have all seen Lip and Song et al. doing exactly this.

Honestly, school and HSC is no big deal and has little to do with what you will be doing in 20 years or the "successfulness" of your life. There are dozens of paths, and RY appears to be choosing the one that does not pass through the CSC. His choice is his business, but we are all entitled to think of his choice, as we choose.

Bob1
22-02-2004, 07:01 PM
Interesting topic.
I think we should all be greatful that Forevergm has informed us that he will not be playing this year and given his reason. Most players don't even offer this courtesy to organisers. It is a shame he will not be defending his championship - but it is his choice. Let us hope we can encourage him to some of the other events this year because he is a serious force to be challenged over the board. (he is also a great kid ... well ... gentleman really)
He is certailnly big enough to tough out a few "personal attacks" on this BB.
(Matt - you're in for special treatment otb if you draw him in round one of a weekender)

samspade - thanks also for expressing you opinion on the new format.
I think at the end of the day Bill's statistics over the last 10 or so years will be the deciding factor to compare this year with others.

PHAT
22-02-2004, 07:58 PM
He is certailnly big enough to tough out a few "personal attacks" on this BB.
(Matt - you're in for special treatment otb if you draw him in round one of a weekender)


Oh no, not again. :uhoh: The first and last time I played him, I was in a lost position before a double digit move was played.

samspade
22-02-2004, 10:34 PM
I believe Ronald Yu has posted before on the old BBs using ForeverGM and he certainly hasn't said anything to make me think it might NOT be him. Reverse inference can be a powerful tool - just ask Goughfather. ;)

How do we know 'Matthew Sweeney' is really 'Matthew Sweeney'? Or how would anyone in Vic know?
Well said.:clap:

skip to my lou
22-02-2004, 11:09 PM
Oh no, not again. :uhoh: The first and last time I played him, I was in a lost position before a double digit move was played.
That is... Extremely Sad!

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 12:39 AM
Apollo, this is Houston.

Whilst you've been orbitting the earth, a whole new set of buzz words have entered the lexicon, like 'time rich'.

Where a tournament soaks up a whole day, having previously only consumed 3-4 hours, some competitors will appreciate that chance to play a couple of games, instead of just one, whilst others who have other commitments, may be unable to commit a whole Sunday to chess.

Might explain why so many more people prefer evening club grade matches to weekend tournaments.

Fair point. I must say I'm the sort who would rather lose five whole weekend days than nine half weekend days, because I can find a lot more use for a whole weekend day than I can for two halves. But that's just me and my set of interests. And while I'd see nine halves as suboptimal, I'd probably still do it, if I was in a city where things ran like that.

As I recall the NSWCA was getting heat on these BBs over the strung out nature of these events for ages. Now they've made the switch, how does the heat in the opposite direction compare?

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 12:48 AM
That is... Extremely Sad!

Have you played against Ronald Yu lately? He's rated higher than I am, and I've had won positions by move 10 against people rated higher than you!

Actually when I get a lost position by move 10 it's usually against someone of around Matt's rating. :oops: Which is embarrassing as hell, but at least they're way to weak to even convert it to a draw.

PHAT
23-02-2004, 06:34 AM
Have you played against Ronald Yu lately? He's rated higher than I am, and I've had won positions by move 10 against people rated higher than you!

Actually when I get a lost position by move 10 it's usually against someone of around Matt's rating. :oops: Which is embarrassing as hell, but at least they're way to weak to even convert it to a draw.

Hey, last Tuesday day I beat an 1831 (30 minute rapid) I was in a won position by move ~8 and held it for another 30+ moves. :p

arosar
23-02-2004, 08:18 AM
Name a name Matty. Who was the opponent?

AR

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2004, 12:45 PM
Name a name Matty. Who was the opponent?

AR
I would has at a guess that it was Mustafa Erkan since Matt and he play at the same club.

PHAT
23-02-2004, 02:45 PM
I would has at a guess that it was Mustafa Erkan since Matt and he play at the same club.

I would have said Sweeney Vs Another. Mustafa is a nice bloke and I wouldn't want to embarras him any further. :lol: Check out his "chess study site"

http://www.collegianschess.cjb.net/

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2004, 03:05 PM
I simply looked at who was rated 1831 on the current rating list and was a likely competitor of yours. ;)

Goughfather
25-02-2004, 11:31 AM
Long time no see,

Although I would have been unlikely to play in the City of Sydney Championships either way, since I have made the decision to few in as few Sydney tournaments as possible this year, I can empathise with both samspade and Ronald. During my HSC period, I didn't play chess at all for at least 12 months. It was a decision that I needed to make, and I decision that I would gladly make again.

I find it sad that our village chess players are in force again, presuming to know what they are talking about, when in reality, this is far from the truth. Samspade's biggest concern is the quality of chess that will be played as a result of the new format. In this I agree with him. Both preparation and mental stamina are vital aspects of playing good chess. With respect to the second game of the day, players will be both drained from the first game, and unable to adequately prepare for their second round (of the day) opponent. Considering that this is meant to be one of the premier events of the NSWCA calendar from which we hope the best chess player, playing the best possible chess, under the best possible conditions would emerge victorious, this new format is disappointing to say the least.

I also object strongly to Matthew's tone towards Ronald. As Matthew says, allowing Ronald slack for being a junior may be somewhat patronising. However, so too is belittling the commitments of the HSC and trivialising it to the extent where it becomes little more than a pop quiz. Of course, it is important (immeasurably moreso than it used to) and quite correctly, Ronald has his priorities in order - ensuring one's academic future is much more important than defending a chess tournament.

Matthew's attack absolutely baffles me. Sure, this resentment is fuelled by "tall-poppy syndrome"/ frustration with the inadequacy of one's own life/ desire to seek attention at any cost, but it must be more than this - this alone would not justify such vitriol. Rest assured though, that Ronald will bounce back from the "outrageous slings and arrows" of Matthew's abuse, even though it is evident that Ronald, along with everyone else, holds Matthew's opinion in such high esteem.

Regards,
Goughfather

jenni
25-02-2004, 02:35 PM
Matthew's attack absolutely baffles me. Sure, this resentment is fuelled by "tall-poppy syndrome"/ frustration with the inadequacy of one's own life/ desire to seek attention at any cost, but it must be more than this - this alone would not justify such vitriol. Rest assured though, that Ronald will bounce back from the "outrageous slings and arrows" of Matthew's abuse, even though it is evident that Ronald, along with everyone else, holds Matthew's opinion in such high esteem.

Regards,
Goughfather

It's easy to understand. As you have correctly identified, Matt feels the need to attack anything that smacks of elitism. Bulletin Boards also give you a level of freedom to go on the attack in a way that you wouldn't dream of doing if you were face to face with your target. It is what makes them fun, but also means they do get out of hand.

Goughfather
25-02-2004, 05:14 PM
It's easy to understand. As you have correctly identified, Matt feels the need to attack anything that smacks of elitism. Bulletin Boards also give you a level of freedom to go on the attack in a way that you wouldn't dream of doing if you were face to face with your target. It is what makes them fun, but also means they do get out of hand.

Hey Jenni,

If it was simply "elitism" that Matthew objected to, I wouldn't have a problem. Personally, I abhor elitism in all of its forms too. I simply think that Matthew fails to draw the distinction between being elite (which arguably applies to Ronald), and elitism (of which I see no basis upon which to accuse Ronald, at least thusfar).

Regards,
Machiavelli

jenni
25-02-2004, 06:12 PM
Hey Jenni,

If it was simply "elitism" that Matthew objected to, I wouldn't have a problem. Personally, I abhor elitism in all of its forms too. I simply think that Matthew fails to draw the distinction between being elite (which arguably applies to Ronald), and elitism (of which I see no basis upon which to accuse Ronald, at least thusfar).

Regards,
Machiavelli

Yes but Matt has his own idiosyncratic ways of detecting elitism! I am not saying he is right - just that after years of reading his posts I tend to know what annoys him!

PHAT
25-02-2004, 06:13 PM
I also object strongly to Matthew's tone towards Ronald.


Mind your own business



As Matthew says, allowing Ronald slack for being a junior may be somewhat patronising. However, so too is belittling the commitments of the HSC and trivialising it to the extent where it becomes little more than a pop quiz.


Trivialise? I am questioning its supposed importance.



Of course, it [HSC] is important (immeasurably more so than it used to)


How old are you? Haven't you learned anything about the vargaries of life and how nearly nothing goes to plan. That being so, any HSC plan will likely not have the intended outcome for 20 years down the track.



...and quite correctly, Ronald has his priorities in order - ensuring one's academic future is much more important than defending a chess tournament.


Who the f... are you to say that? Who the f... am I to say the opposite. I will tell you? You are a person and so am I and we are entitled to our opinions and entitled to voice them. You seem to think that me voicing a desenting view is unacceptable while your support of RY dession is acceptable. well, mate, both are acceptable. If you do not agree with that you are in for a flogging.



Matthew's attack absolutely baffles me.


I wish I could really could baffle your exhaust pipe.



Sure, this resentment is fuelled by "tall-poppy syndrome"/ frustration with the inadequacy of one's own life/ desire to seek attention at any cost, but it must be more than this - this alone would not justify such vitriol.


"tall-poppy syndrom"? - No, I like weeding.

Frustration with my own life? - No, frustration at seeing people run themselves raggedfor no increase in net happiness.

Attention at any cost? - No, if I wanted attention I would would have picked a bigger pond than Australian chess.

Vitriol? U aint seen nuffin yet. You take me on and I'll have you suiciding in 21 days.



Rest assured though, that Ronald will bounce back from the "outrageous slings and arrows" of Matthew's abuse, ...


I did not "abuse RY. I did however get him atiny bit of stick for putting HSC ahead of life.



even though it is evident that Ronald, along with everyone else, holds Matthew's opinion in such high esteem.


To my knowledge, RY has not made any (public) statement regarding my opinion. He may or may not conceed that I have a point.

As for one's opinion being held in high esteem by "everyone else", popularity is no measure of truth or correctness.

Now, FO.

PHAT
25-02-2004, 06:20 PM
"I have come that RY may have life, and have it without HSC" - John 10:10.1

PHAT
25-02-2004, 07:10 PM
Yes but Matt has his own idiosyncratic ways of detecting elitism! I am not saying he is right - just that after years of reading his posts I tend to know what annoys him!

To clarify:

{e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ** n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.}

The words "favored treatment by virtue" is the core of the problem. Birthright, royalty, hero-worship, privalege for the privaledged, fortune for the fortunate. ie "favored treatment by virtue"

Goughfather
25-02-2004, 07:15 PM
Mind your own business

I have an opinion. I wish to express it. I have a right to. Deal with it. :cool:


Trivialise? I am questioning its supposed importance.

It sure seemed like trivialising to me. Besides, what qualifications (formal, or experiential) have you got to speak upon the importance of the HSC in 2004 with any semblance of credibility? :whistle:


How old are you? Haven't you learned anything about the vargaries of life and how nearly nothing goes to plan. That being so, any HSC plan will likely not have the intended outcome for 20 years down the track.

Of course plans and circumstances change. The HSC is not the "be all and end all", but it is important. In this respect, don't you think that sacrificing one chess tournament is a small price to pay for ensuring a good result in the HSC? :eek:


Who the f... are you to say that? Who the f... am I to say the opposite. I will tell you? You are a person and so am I and we are entitled to our opinions and entitled to voice them.

Of course, but it doesn't make you any more correct.


You seem to think that me voicing a desenting view is unacceptable while your support of RY dession is acceptable.

Oh come on, quit playing the victim card. No-one's depriving you of sharing your views. I don't object to you sharing your views, merely the way in which you are doing so.


well, mate, both are acceptable. If you do not agree with that you are in for a flogging.

You don't seem to find the fact that I'm expressing a view acceptable.


Frustration with my own life? - No, frustration at seeing people run themselves raggedfor no increase in net happiness.

You may feel frustrated, but don't they have the right to adopt this course of action, should they wish?


Attention at any cost? - No, if I wanted attention I would would have picked a bigger pond than Australian chess.

Let's face it - attention is attention, on any scale. :owned:


Vitriol? U aint seen nuffin yet. You take me on and I'll have you suiciding in 21 days.

Alright, give me a few days to order the anti-depressants first. :lol:


I did not "abuse RY. I did however get him atiny bit of stick for putting HSC ahead of life.

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the concept of hyperbole.

In what sense is Ronald putting the HSC ahead of life? For missing out on a chess tournament? I know Anatoly Karpov once said "Chess is Life", but seriously, you can't compare the two, can you?

I'd like to think (despite the reality that this is not always the case) that my academic commitments generally took precedence over chess. I applaud Ronald's decision to do likewise. :clap:


To my knowledge, RY has not made any (public) statement regarding my opinion. He may or may not conceed that I have a point.

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the concept of facetious sarcasm.


As for one's opinion being held in high esteem by "everyone else", popularity is no measure of truth or correctness.

Of course not. Matthew, you truly are a light shining out of the darkness, a rose among thorns. Your views are unpopular, therefore they MUST be right :hmm:

Bob1
25-02-2004, 07:27 PM
I know Anatoly Karpov once said "Chess is Life", but seriously, you can't compare the two, can you?
:

Ronald is better looking !

PHAT
25-02-2004, 07:34 PM
I have an opinion. I wish to express it. I have a right to. Deal with it. :cool:



It sure seemed like trivialising to me. Besides, what qualifications (formal, or experiential) have you got to speak upon the importance of the HSC in 2004 with any semblance of credibility? :whistle:



Of course plans and circumstances change. The HSC is not the "be all and end all", but it is important. In this respect, don't you think that sacrificing one chess tournament is a small price to pay for ensuring a good result in the HSC? :eek:



Of course, but it doesn't make you any more correct.



Oh come on, quit playing the victim card. No-one's depriving you of sharing your views. I don't object to you sharing your views, merely the way in which you are doing so.



You don't seem to find the fact that I'm expressing a view acceptable.



You may feel frustrated, but don't they have the right to adopt this course of action, should they wish?



Let's face it - attention is attention, on any scale. :owned:



Alright, give me a few days to order the anti-depressants first. :lol:



Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the concept of hyperbole.

In what sense is Ronald putting the HSC ahead of life? For missing out on a chess tournament? I know Anatoly Karpov once said "Chess is Life", but seriously, you can't compare the two, can you?

I'd like to think (despite the reality that this is not always the case) that my academic commitments generally took precedence over chess. I applaud Ronald's decision to do likewise. :clap:



Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the concept of facetious sarcasm.



Of course not. Matthew, you truly are a light shining out of the darkness, a rose among thorns. Your views are unpopular, therefore they MUST be right :hmm:

Fair enough. :) I think we pretty much agree on everything above except for the relative importance of HSC cf the rest of day to day life.

BTW. RY is proving to something more than a shrinking violet. First he sticks it to the CSC schedual and now he wants to know where is 2003 GP points have gone :eek: Good on him. :clap:

Rincewind
25-02-2004, 08:07 PM
Fair enough. :) I think we pretty much agree on everything above except for the relative importance of HSC cf the rest of day to day life.

That might be worth a thread on it own. I did the NSW HSC some 20 years ago. I think it was important then and it is important now.

True there are many paths to any given detination in life but not all paths are of equal length and gradient - so it is important to maintain as many options as possible.

I think doing well in the HSC is not the be all and end all of one's existence. This is a myth perpetuated by the so-called "current affairs" shows and fluff pieces on the evening news. However, it is important in providing as many options as possible at each fork in the road. The fact of the matter is a higher number in the "secondary education" column does this. Especially for the years immediately following HS graduation.

Paul S
26-02-2004, 12:57 AM
Fair point. I must say I'm the sort who would rather lose five whole weekend days than nine half weekend days, because I can find a lot more use for a whole weekend day than I can for two halves. But that's just me and my set of interests. And while I'd see nine halves as suboptimal, I'd probably still do it, if I was in a city where things ran like that.

As I recall the NSWCA was getting heat on these BBs over the strung out nature of these events for ages. Now they've made the switch, how does the heat in the opposite direction compare?

From what I remember the BB criticisms came from 3 people, Matt, Matthew Sweeney, and Mr Sweeney. ;) :lol:

Of course, some of the criticisms were valid, and the NSWCA responded by deciding to hold this year's City of Sydney (COS) along the format that Matt proposed.

As I see it, the onus is on people like Matt to show up and play in this year's COS (IMHO the onus is not the likes of Ronald Yu), as Matt (and others) were the ones who wanted the present format for the COS.

So, lets hope that all these Wollongong (and players of similar distance from the COS) actually show up and play in the COS!

It would be disappointing if less players played in the 2004 COS than last year's COS (2003).

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2004, 01:12 AM
Personally, I abhor elitism in all of its forms too.

But you did once approvingly cite a comment about not arguing with people who don't have PhDs because they do not know when they are wrong. :owned:

(Not criticising your position, by the way, just being opportunistically cheeky. Ignore me and go back to giving Matt a flogging for my entertainment.)

Goughfather
26-02-2004, 11:31 AM
But you did once approvingly cite a comment about not arguing with people who don't have PhDs because they do not know when they are wrong.

(Not criticising your position, by the way, just being opportunistically cheeky. Ignore me and go back to giving Matt a flogging for my entertainment.)

Hey Kevin,

Well, just because I espouse such a position, doesn't mean that I follow it. :uhoh: To be honest though, I'd like to avoid hypocrisy if I can, but it tends to rear its ugly head when I least expect it - when I usually think I have it conquered. It would probably be rather hypocritical, not to mention dishonest of me to claim that I had never acted hypocritically in my life.

As for the context of the above statement, I believe I was quoting William Lane Craig's comments after his hopelessly mismatched debate with Phillip Adams. I guess one could call that elitist (and in understanding Craig's comment, I could be regarded as a co-signatory of elitism), but in the circumstances, where a top flight debate was expected and undelivered, Craig's comments almost seem justifiable. I believe at a later point in time, Craig debated Sydney University philosophy lecturer Peter Seezlak (sp?), which produced a much more closely fought and intellectually stimulating forum.

Regards,
Goughfather

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2004, 04:42 PM
As for the context of the above statement, I believe I was quoting William Lane Craig's comments after his hopelessly mismatched debate with Phillip Adams.

You were.


I believe at a later point in time, Craig debated Sydney University philosophy lecturer Peter Seezlak (sp?), which produced a much more closely fought and intellectually stimulating forum.

Slezak. I have not found a transcript but there is a layman's review, which is weakly argued but gives a good idea of the ground covered by the speakers, here. (http://absolutegod.com/townhall.php)

(If anyone wants to discuss this stuff in depth we can do so in the offtopic forum).

skip to my lou
27-02-2004, 01:15 AM
Have you played against Ronald Yu lately? He's rated higher than I am, and I've had won positions by move 10 against people rated higher than you!

Actually when I get a lost position by move 10 it's usually against someone of around Matt's rating. :oops: Which is embarrassing as hell, but at least they're way to weak to even convert it to a draw.

I have never played Ronald Yu.. I have however played Solomon and held 0.10 + or - up to move 27 or 28, which is probably crap, but 10 moves is pathetic.

I reckon my strength has improved quite a bit, probably because I stopped playing blitz. I lost my queen at toukley against a 1670 rated player and still won the game... :eh: :p

I might actually get some time to study chess this year.. sooo watch out! mwahahah :)

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2004, 02:32 AM
I have never played Ronald Yu.. I have however played Solomon and held 0.10 + or - up to move 27 or 28, which is probably crap

Actually very respectable if it was a full-length game. I would not be too displeased with such an effort. (Assuming the 0.10 is meaningful rather than the computer not fully understanding the position).

Also very respectable if it was blitz given Solo's blitz skills.

skip to my lou
27-02-2004, 01:43 PM
Actually very respectable if it was a full-length game. I would not be too displeased with such an effort. (Assuming the 0.10 is meaningful rather than the computer not fully understanding the position).

Also very respectable if it was blitz given Solo's blitz skills.

1 hour followed by 10 sec per move.

samspade
27-02-2004, 10:51 PM
(If anyone wants to discuss this stuff in depth we can do so in the offtopic forum).
Yeah. Stop hijacking my thread, y'all.

Garvinator
27-02-2004, 10:56 PM
Yeah. Stop hijacking my thread, y'all.
take it from the biggest complainer of ppl hijacking threads, get used to it a bit, just try and lead the convo back to the original topic :D

chesslover
28-02-2004, 09:29 PM
Mind your own business

How old are you? Haven't you learned anything about the vargaries of life and how nearly nothing goes to plan. That being so, any HSC plan will likely not have the intended outcome for 20 years down the track.

Vitriol? U aint seen nuffin yet. You take me on and I'll have you suiciding in 21 days.

I did not "abuse RY. I did however get him atiny bit of stick for putting HSC ahead of life.

Now, FO.

I take strong exception to the way you have talked to Gough. He made a reasonable point and you did not have to reply so rudely to him

I also think that your point aboput HSC is wrong. The marks on the HSC will decide what you want to do with life, and will determine whether you can go to Medicine/ Law/ Economics etc. Sure life will change but HSC is one of the major determinants on the course of your life. I personally think having kids at 18 decide on the future of their life is stupid - and that all people at uni should do a 3 year arts course before deciding what to specialise in

Other than that, I think that your points here have been well made, and you most certainly did not abuse Ronald

PHAT
28-02-2004, 09:38 PM
I also think that your point aboput HSC is wrong. The marks on the HSC will decide what you want to do with life, and will determine whether you can go to Medicine/ Law/ Economics etc. Sure life will change but HSC is one of the major determinants on the course of your life.


Remember pinball machines? People are the balls and the HSC is the launcher button.

Bob1
29-02-2004, 04:50 PM
45 Entrants for 2004
This may suggest that the format is not as popular as hoped.

Nice to see Jesper (visiting) playing in Australia again.

And as Luck would have it round 1 sees Lloyd Fell playing Lloyd Fell



List of Players
No Name Rtg Loc

1. Xie, George 2239
2. Canfell, Gregory J 2201
3. Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper 2198
4. Ayvazyan, Armen 2083
5. Charles, Gareth 2037
6. Capilitan, Romeo 1981
7. Jens, Henk W 1960
8. Ilic, Ilija 1923
9. Dick, David W 1896
10. Chan, Jason 1883
11. Winter, George 1876
12. Lee, Ben 1859
13. Suttor, Vincent 1828
14. Sewell, R 1809
15. Song, Raymond 1790
16. Cronan, James 1760
17. Rachmadi, Herman 1756
18. Fell, Lloyd S 1730
19. Tomas, Tom 1686
20. Sandalciyan, Aram 1677
21. Mendes da Costa, Alex 1620
22. Huddleston, Heather 1616
23. Bleicher, Horst 1605
24. Huang, Justin 1596
25. Field, Andrew 1595
26. Hu, Jason 1590
27. Escribano, Jose 1573
28. Keuning, Anthony V 1565
29. Song, Angela 1521
30. Nabulsi, Derek 1488
31. Kresinger, Frank 1478
32. Greenwood, Norman 1443
33. Hor, Stanton 1442
34. Bisson, Danny Wayne 1413
35. Art, Carl 1378
36. Tracey, Michael J 1373
37. Nguyen, Joseph 1363
38. Miranda, Adrian 1315
39. Baker, John A 1298
40. Fell, Lloyd R 1242
41. Parker, Trent 1181
42. Talpade, Udit 863
43. Frerer, Samantha
44. Nalbandian, Alex
45. Sands, Roland

Bill Gletsos
29-02-2004, 04:54 PM
45 Entrants for 2004
This may suggest that the format is not as popular as hoped.
Although you could not guess that from the survey responses.
Ralph suggested to me that perhaps the entry fee was too high.

arosar
29-02-2004, 05:54 PM
How many respondents have you had so far Bill? When do we expect to see a report or at least some prelim data?

This move to a 2 game/day format is definitely the way to go. Congrats on this step forward. Here's hoping that the States will follow suit. As to the prize money - it's a bit tiny Bill. I surmise that this is a major culprit for the low turn-out. Given that you fellaz got the venue for free, you shoulda pushed the 1st prize to $1K or more. I mean, c'mon mate, after the donations you got last year, your coffers are pretty full, right?

AR

Bill Gletsos
29-02-2004, 06:20 PM
How many respondents have you had so far Bill? When do we expect to see a report or at least some prelim data?
There were 60 odd respondents to the survey.


This move to a 2 game/day format is definitely the way to go. Congrats on this step forward. Here's hoping that the States will follow suit. As to the prize money - it's a bit tiny Bill. I surmise that this is a major culprit for the low turn-out.
I doubt it. The prize money was I believe the same as last year.
Perhaps the problem was making it all one division.
Changing multople aspects at once is always a problem because you cannot be sure which aspect is having what effect.


Given that you fellaz got the venue for free, you shoulda pushed the 1st prize to $1K or more. I mean, c'mon mate, after the donations you got last year, your coffers are pretty full, right?
Keep an eye on the NSW Open later in the year.

Bob1
29-02-2004, 07:44 PM
How many respondents have you had so far Bill? When do we expect to see a report or at least some prelim data?

This move to a 2 game/day format is definitely the way to go. Congrats on this step forward. Here's hoping that the States will follow suit. As to the prize money - it's a bit tiny Bill. I surmise that this is a major culprit for the low turn-out. Given that you fellaz got the venue for free, you shoulda pushed the 1st prize to $1K or more. I mean, c'mon mate, after the donations you got last year, your coffers are pretty full, right?

AR

Income from Entries (about) $3120
Allow for ACF rating fees (say) -$100
Arbiter for 5 weeks -$500
Venue Rent -$000 (and huge thank you to BG for this)

Advertised Prize pool $3,700 (disclaimer - with 75 entries)
Open: 1st $600 2nd $400 3rd $200
U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, Junior: 1st $250 2nd $150 3rd $100

Now I'm no mathemagition but Increasing 1st prize is not the only part of the equation here.

samspade
29-02-2004, 10:22 PM
45 Entrants for 2004
This may suggest that the format is not as popular as hoped.


I love being vindicated

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 10:27 PM
I love being vindicated
a reduced number of entries does not mean that you have been vindicated.

Bill Gletsos
29-02-2004, 10:36 PM
a reduced number of entries does not mean that you have been vindicated.
Exactly gg.
There are a number of other possibilties why the numbers are down.

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Exactly gg.
There are a number of other possibilties why the numbers are down.
samspade, to prove that your conclusion is correct, you have to prove that the change of format was the main reason ppl did not play.

My opinion is that players will turn up for any large event, unless the conditions are completely ridiculous. That does not appear to be the case here.

i agree that 45 is not many for event like this, but to give an equivalent result- currently being held is the City of Brisbane at the Brisbane contract bridge club. the COB has received approx 32 entries. the rest of the conditions, prize money etc can be found at: http://www.caq.org.au/htm/cobad.htm

Paul S
29-02-2004, 11:02 PM
Income from Entries (about) $3120
Allow for ACF rating fees (say) -$100
Arbiter for 5 weeks -$500
Venue Rent -$000 (and huge thank you to BG for this)

Advertised Prize pool $3,700 (disclaimer - with 75 entries)
Open: 1st $600 2nd $400 3rd $200
U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, Junior: 1st $250 2nd $150 3rd $100

Now I'm no mathemagition but Increasing 1st prize is not the only part of the equation here.

Bob, you forgot the GP fees! :lol: ;) :eek:

I would have thought the 2004 GP Co-odinator would have remebered that!

:doh: :lol:

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:05 PM
Bob, you forgot the GP fees! :lol: ;) :eek:

I would have thought the 2004 GP Co-odinator would have remebered that!

:doh: :lol:

according to http://www.loganarts.com/gp2004/gp2004.htm, the city of sydney championships is not a grand prix event.

jase
29-02-2004, 11:08 PM
The Grand Prix was devised to create a circuit of weekenders around Australia.

The City of Sydney is not and has never been a GP event.

By God Bob's website looks awesome! Absolutely, utterly, good. By all means Bob your modesty will urge you to deflect/share the praise; and so be it - nice work by anyone who's had a hand in there.

Paul S
29-02-2004, 11:14 PM
45 Entrants for 2004

List of Players
No Name Rtg Loc

1. Xie, George 2239
2. Canfell, Gregory J 2201
.............................................
.............................................
44. Nalbandian, Alex
45. Sands, Roland

Where was Matthew Sweeney? :p On the old BB, Matt was the biggest pusher for this format for the COS, so I had expected him to be there.

It would appear that the NSWCA would be better off reverting to the old format (1 round a week over 9 Sundays) for the 2005 COS.

Whatever the reasons for it, 45 is a disappointing turnout (particularly when the NSWCA had expected 75 to show up, based on its advertised prize fund).

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:16 PM
It would appear that the NSWCA would be better off reverting to the old format (1 round a week over 9 Sundays) for the 2005 COS.

Whatever the reasons for it, 45 is a disappointing turnout (particularly when the NSWCA had expected 75 to show up, based on its advertised prize fund).
I think so far that the critics of the format and entries have not disproven the potential other legitimate reasons why entries are down.

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:18 PM
By God Bob's website looks awesome! Absolutely, utterly, good. By all means Bob your modesty will urge you to deflect/share the praise; and so be it - nice work by anyone who's had a hand in there.
Bob is not the only person who has a hand in the running of the gp :mad:

Paul S
29-02-2004, 11:24 PM
The Grand Prix was devised to create a circuit of weekenders around Australia.

The City of Sydney is not and has never been a GP event.

By God Bob's website looks awesome! Absolutely, utterly, good. By all means Bob your modesty will urge you to deflect/share the praise; and so be it - nice work by anyone who's had a hand in there.

Jason

You are correct! I have just had a look at the NSWCA website and the COS is NOT a GP event! It looks like I have a bit of egg on my face (my apologies to you, Bob)! :oops: :oops: :oops:

I fully agree with your comments about Bob Keast's website for the 2004 GP - well done, Bob (and well done to the others who are involved with the 2004 GP website). :clap: :clap: :clap:

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:26 PM
Jason

You are correct! I have just had a look at the NSWCA website and the COS is NOT a GP event! It looks like I have a bit of egg on my face (my apologies to you, Bob)! :oops: :oops: :oops:

I fully agree with your comments about Bob Keast's website for the 2004 GP - well done, Bob (and well done to the others who are involved with the 2004 GP website). :clap: :clap: :clap:
are my comments on this matter just being completely ignored?

Paul S
29-02-2004, 11:37 PM
are my comments on this matter just being completely ignored?

No, its just that I did not see your posts of 12.16am and 12.18am until after my post of 12.24am. I had started to reply to Jason's post at 12.15am, and so did not see your posts until I had finished my post (I had some trouble trying to find the :oops: emoticon, which is why it took me 9 minutes!).

To make you feel better, I say well done to you too Mr ggrayggray on the 2004 GP! Feel better now? :lol: :lol:

jase
29-02-2004, 11:38 PM
are my comments on this matter just being completely ignored?

Which ones in particular?

- You think the low turnout could be attributed to factors other than the change in format, but don't elaborate. Not much to go on ...

- You grumpily point out to me that "Bob is not the only person who has a hand in the running of the gp", which is ironic, in light of you quoting my comment that it is "nice work by anyone who's had a hand in there".

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:38 PM
No, its just that I did not see your posts of 12.16am and 12.18am until after my post of 12.24am. I had started to reply to Jason's post at 12.15am, and so did not see your posts until I had finished my post (I had some trouble trying to find the :oops: emoticon, which is why it took me 9 minutes!).

To make you feel better, I say well done to you too Mr ggrayggray on the 2004 GP! Feel better now? :lol: :lol:
not really sorry :p

jase
29-02-2004, 11:55 PM
Lest this thread drift into a topic totally unrelated to the City of Sydney [ie the Grand Prix], perhaps attention should turn to an analysis of the poor tunrout of the City of Sydney.

Bill has posted the turnout for the City of Sydney over the past 10 years and this year is clearly the lowest.

Different formats do seem to struggle, at least initially. I think the NSWCA is on the right track to offer something different, but is struggling to sell it to the punters.

I agree with Ralph [and others] that entry fees are too high. Where is the membership dollar going if not to subsidise tournament players? Why such a desperate effort to turn a profit at tournaments when the NSWCA's financial position is so healthy? If the NSW chess scene were an economy we'd find the treasurer running up a budget deficit, pumping resources into the system to give it a boost and bring back activity.

You receive less income for 80 players at $40 entry fee than you do for 45 players at $80, but add in the extra memberships and it may be about the same financial position, but the overall health of the chess community would be far better.

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 11:59 PM
You receive less income for 80 players at $40 entry fee than you do for 45 players at $80, but add in the extra memberships and it may be about the same financial position, but the overall health of the chess community would be far better.
and saying you got 80 players for your tournament does sound better for your tournament than 45. I wonder has a tournament of note in sydney been tried with say $20 entry fee and tried to attract 160 players or so? Might be an idea to consider :hmm:

Rincewind
01-03-2004, 12:43 AM
and saying you got 80 players for your tournament does sound better for your tournament than 45. I wonder has a tournament of note in sydney been tried with say $20 entry fee and tried to attract 160 players or so? Might be an idea to consider :hmm:

Or a $5 entry fee attracting 640 players. Now that really would be a monster swiss! ;)

Garvinator
01-03-2004, 12:45 AM
Or a $5 entry fee attracting 640 players. Now that really would be a monster swiss! ;)well that would need at least 10 rounds, so would it be 5 days at 2 games per day or 10 days at 1 game per day :p

arosar
01-03-2004, 07:58 AM
Or a $5 entry fee attracting 640 players. Now that really would be a monster swiss! ;)

Yeah baby!!

AR

Paul S
01-03-2004, 09:27 AM
Or a $5 entry fee attracting 640 players. Now that really would be a monster swiss! ;)

Sounds great! :D Although I would feel sorry for the DOP who has to run it! :(

Paul S
01-03-2004, 09:30 AM
Lest this thread drift into a topic totally unrelated to the City of Sydney [ie the Grand Prix], perhaps attention should turn to an analysis of the poor tunrout of the City of Sydney.

Bill has posted the turnout for the City of Sydney over the past 10 years and this year is clearly the lowest.

Different formats do seem to struggle, at least initially. I think the NSWCA is on the right track to offer something different, but is struggling to sell it to the punters.

I agree with Ralph [and others] that entry fees are too high. Where is the membership dollar going if not to subsidise tournament players? Why such a desperate effort to turn a profit at tournaments when the NSWCA's financial position is so healthy? If the NSW chess scene were an economy we'd find the treasurer running up a budget deficit, pumping resources into the system to give it a boost and bring back activity.

You receive less income for 80 players at $40 entry fee than you do for 45 players at $80, but add in the extra memberships and it may be about the same financial position, but the overall health of the chess community would be far better.

You raise some good points here, Jason.

I think that having discounted entry fees for pensioners/students/unemployed etc would help in attracting more players.

Trent Parker
01-03-2004, 09:48 AM
Perhaps another factor could be the fact that there are no two divisions this time around. U1600 players may feel that they have more of a shot at winning something if they only have to play U1600 people, whilst people over 1600 may feel that there might be a lowering in the standard of games?? could be a possibility.

Garvinator
01-03-2004, 10:03 AM
Perhaps another factor could be the fact that there are no two divisions this time around. U1600 players may feel that they have more of a shot at winning something if they only have to play U1600 people, whilst people over 1600 may feel that there might be a lowering in the standard of games?? could be a possibility.
thank you tparker for raising another possibility to the change of play format. It would be interesting to see how many players there are this from the u1600 range than there was last year and what percentage of the field they are compared to last year?

Trent Parker
01-03-2004, 10:50 AM
Okay lets have a look


List of Players
No Name Rtg Loc

1. Xie, George 2239
2. Canfell, Gregory J 2201
3. Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper 2198
4. Ayvazyan, Armen 2083
5. Charles, Gareth 2037
6. Capilitan, Romeo 1981
7. Jens, Henk W 1960
8. Ilic, Ilija 1923
9. Dick, David W 1896
10. Chan, Jason 1883
11. Winter, George 1876
12. Lee, Ben 1859
13. Suttor, Vincent 1828
14. Sewell, R 1809
15. Song, Raymond 1790
16. Cronan, James 1760
17. Rachmadi, Herman 1756
18. Fell, Lloyd S 1730
19. Tomas, Tom 1686
20. Sandalciyan, Aram 1677
21. Mendes da Costa, Alex 1620
22. Huddleston, Heather 1616
23. Bleicher, Horst 1605
24. Huang, Justin 1596
25. Field, Andrew 1595
26. Hu, Jason 1590
27. Escribano, Jose 1573
28. Keuning, Anthony V 1565
29. Song, Angela 1521
30. Nabulsi, Derek 1488
31. Kresinger, Frank 1478
32. Greenwood, Norman 1443
33. Hor, Stanton 1442
34. Bisson, Danny Wayne 1413
35. Art, Carl 1378
36. Tracey, Michael J 1373
37. Nguyen, Joseph 1363
38. Miranda, Adrian 1315
39. Baker, John A 1298
40. Fell, Lloyd R 1242
41. Parker, Trent 1181
42. Talpade, Udit 863
43. Frerer, Samantha
44. Nalbandian, Alex
45. Sands, Roland

2000+: 5
1900-1999:3
1800-1899:6
1700-1799:4
1600-1699:5
1500-1599:6
1400-1499:5
1300-1399:4
1200-1299:2
U1200 2
Unrated: 2

Last year:
Open
2000+ :5
1900-1999:5
1800-1899:4
1700-1799:6
1600-1699:4
1500-1599:3
-1500 :1 (1156)
Unrated :1

U1700
1600-1699:5
1500-1599:6
1400-1499:7
1300-1399:1
1200-1299:3
1100-1199:6
1000-1099:1
-1000 :1
Unrated :1

So total movement
This year Last year +/-
2000+ 5 5 0
1900's 3 5 -2
1800 6 4 +2
1700 4 6 -2
1600 5 9 -4
1500 6 9 -3
1400 5 7 -2
1300 4 1 +3
1200 2 3 -1
1100 1 7 -6
1000 0 1 -1
-1000 1 1 0
UNR 2 2 0

Make of it what you will.

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 10:55 AM
Okay lets have a look


2000+: 5
1900-1999:3
1800-1899:6
1700-1799:4
1600-1699:5
1500-1599:6
1400-1499:5
1300-1399:4
1200-1299:2
U1200 2
Unrated: 2

Last year:
Open
2000+ :5
1900-1999:5
1800-1899:4
1700-1799:6
1600-1699:4
1500-1599:3
-1500 :1 (1156)
Unrated :1

U1700
1600-1699:5
1500-1599:6
1400-1499:7
1300-1399:1
1200-1299:3
1100-1199:6
1000-1099:1
-1000 :1
Unrated :1

So total movement
This year Last year +/-
2000+ 5 5 0
1900's 3 5 -2
1800 6 4 +2
1700 4 6 -2
1600 5 9 -4
1500 6 9 -3
1400 5 7 -2
1300 4 1 +3
1200 2 3 -1
1100 1 7 -6
1000 0 1 -1
-1000 1 1 0
UNR 2 2 0

Make of it what you will.
As I said above based on survey results 2 rounds a day was popular.
I suspect one major reason the numbers are down is because there were not seperate divisions this year.

Trent Parker
01-03-2004, 11:09 AM
that is my opinion also, but i didn't want to say it at the risk of sounding biased :-D

arosar
01-03-2004, 11:16 AM
Don't worry about it Bill. Change is always hard ya see: teething probs and all that, resistance, etc, etc. But once people realise the merits and, of course, you also deprive them of choice, then they will be forced into this wonderful new idea of 2 games/day. Ignore these traditionalists - they'll come around, you'll see. Let this be a learning outcome though: 2 divisisons for next year.

AR

Paul S
01-03-2004, 02:16 PM
Don't worry about it Bill. Change is always hard ya see: teething probs and all that, resistance, etc, etc. But once people realise the merits and, of course, you also deprive them of choice, then they will be forced into this wonderful new idea of 2 games/day. Ignore these traditionalists - they'll come around, you'll see. Let this be a learning outcome though: 2 divisisons for next year.

AR

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I am slightly in favour of 2 rounds per day over 5 Sundays as opposed to 1 round per day over 9 Sundays. I also think that the NSWCA did the right thing by giving it a try for this year's COS (City of Sydney).

Yet IMHO the views of people like Arosar and myself are not what really matters at the end of the day. What really matters are the opinions of those who would have played in this year's COS but did not, whether it was due to the 2 rounds per day format or the one division format (as compared to last year's format) or for other reasons.

IMHO for every player like Ronald Yu and Sam Spade who said they would not play this year due to the 2 rounds a day format, there would be 10 others like them.

Its all very well for people like Matthew and Amiel (and to a much lesser extent myself) to say that the 2 rounds per day format is better, but what good is it at the end of the day if these people (who are in favour of the 2 rounds a day format) don't actually end up playing in the COS?

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 02:46 PM
As mentioned earlier in this thread, I am slightly in favour of 2 rounds per day over 5 Sundays as opposed to 1 round per day over 9 Sundays. I also think that the NSWCA did the right thing by giving it a try for this year's COS (City of Sydney).

Yet IMHO the views of people like Arosar and myself are not what really matters at the end of the day. What really matters are the opinions of those who would have played in this year's COS but did not, whether it was due to the 2 rounds per day format or the one division format (as compared to last year's format) or for other reasons.

IMHO for every player like Ronald Yu and Sam Spade who said they would not play this year due to the 2 rounds a day format, there would be 10 others like them.

Its all very well for people like Matthew and Amiel (and to a much lesser extent myself) to say that the 2 rounds per day format is better, but what good is it at the end of the day if these people (who are in favour of the 2 rounds a day format) don't actually end up playing in the COS?
Unfortunately paul, all you know is Ronald's and samspades view. You dont know other peoples. To suggest there would be 10 others like them is unfounded without any actual further evidence.

I could equally argue it the lack of 2 divisions that effected it.

Paul S
01-03-2004, 03:43 PM
Unfortunately paul, all you know is Ronald's and samspades view. You dont know other peoples. To suggest there would be 10 others like them is unfounded without any actual further evidence.


We could argue all day about whether or not the 10 to 1 ratio is close to the mark - I guess it can't be proved one way or the other. What I am certain of though is that there are a lot of chess players who do not read this BB (or who read and do not post), so it is reasonable to assume that other chess players (apart from Ronald and Sam) did not play because of the 2 rounds a day format issue.



I could equally argue it the lack of 2 divisions that effected it.

Yes, you could argue that. Based on your first post in this thread (see page 1 in this thread), I notice that in 1998 COS there were (co-incidentally) only 45 players and only 1 division. In all the other recent years there were 2 divisions (and more than 45 players).

I guess it all depends on how one wants to interpret statistics! :lol:

arosar
01-03-2004, 04:03 PM
Its all very well for people like Matthew and Amiel (and to a much lesser extent myself) to say that the 2 rounds per day format is better, but what good is it at the end of the day if these people (who are in favour of the 2 rounds a day format) don't actually end up playing in the COS?

Shut your fingertips Paulie. That's just ridiculous. My not playing doesn't affect my position. I've played in the COS, as well as States, and I don't see any good reason why we have to drag the ordeal for so long. So you see . . . it's based on experience. When was the last time you played in a COS or States or even a w/ender Paulie?

FYI . . . other than lifestyle changes and a temporary waning of my OTB (non-blitz) spirit, I am busy becoming a better capitalist.

AR

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 04:41 PM
We could argue all day about whether or not the 10 to 1 ratio is close to the mark - I guess it can't be proved one way or the other. What I am certain of though is that there are a lot of chess players who do not read this BB (or who read and do not post), so it is reasonable to assume that other chess players (apart from Ronald and Sam) did not play because of the 2 rounds a day format issue.



Yes, you could argue that. Based on your first post in this thread (see page 1 in this thread), I notice that in 1998 COS there were (co-incidentally) only 45 players and only 1 division. In all the other recent years there were 2 divisions (and more than 45 players).

I guess it all depends on how one wants to interpret statistics! :lol:
No what it means is you have no more of a clue whether it was due to 2 rounds a day or whether it was one division that caused the reduced entry because you have no data to go base it on.
All you are doing is speculating.

Garvinator
01-03-2004, 04:52 PM
No what it means is you have no more of a clue whether it was due to 2 rounds a day or whether it was one division that caused the reduced entry because you have no data to go base it on.
All you are doing is speculating.
looks like the 2 games per day and two division option should be tried for next years COS

Paul S
01-03-2004, 04:53 PM
Shut your fingertips Paulie. That's just ridiculous. My not playing doesn't affect my position. I've played in the COS, as well as States, and I don't see any good reason why we have to drag the ordeal for so long. So you see . . . it's based on experience. When was the last time you played in a COS or States or even a w/ender Paulie?

FYI . . . other than lifestyle changes and a temporary waning of my OTB (non-blitz) spirit, I am busy becoming a better capitalist.

AR

It's not ridiculous at all. Yes, you, me and anyone else is entitled to an opinion and is entitled to express it on this BB (as we both have done). I wasn't having a go at you in particular (I even included myself in my "criticism"), but I think my point is valid in that the more important opinions on the 9 week/1 round versus 5 week/2 round format are the opinions of those players who would (or would not) play in the COS depending on which of the 2 formats was used (as opposed to people like me and you who weren't going to play in it anyway).

I have never played in the COS. The last time I played in a weekender was the 2003 NSW Championships in late 2003 (I would have played in the 2004 Australia Day Weekender, but I've already gone into why I didn't play there in another thread, so I won't repeat myself here). I consider myself more of a club player (Canterbury and St George) than a weekend player, so I don't play much weekend chess (in fact from circa 1994 to end 2001 I played no weekend chess at all!). At present (because I am playing in the St George club championship) I am playing chess 2 nights a week, which for me is enough chess in a week, so I don't want to play in weekenders aswell at the moment. In fact, I think that one of the major problems with chess in Sydney is that the NSWCA (and posters on this BB) put excessive focus on weekenders at the expense of club chess.

Paul S
01-03-2004, 04:58 PM
I notice that in 1998 COS there were (co-incidentally) only 45 players and only 1 division. In all the other recent years there were 2 divisions (and more than 45 players).

Hey, Bill. Why did the NSWCA decide to have only one division this year if the previous time it was tried in recent years (1998) only 45 players turned up? :doh: :doh: :doh:

Paul S
01-03-2004, 05:07 PM
No what it means is you have no more of a clue whether it was due to 2 rounds a day or whether it was one division that caused the reduced entry because you have no data to go base it on.
All you are doing is speculating.

A reasonable assumption would be that the numbers are down due to BOTH of these factors.

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 06:16 PM
Hey, Bill. Why did the NSWCA decide to have only one division this year if the previous time it was tried in recent years (1998) only 45 players turned up? :doh: :doh: :doh:
The Council has allowed its new Tournaments Officer ralph Seberry a fairlt free hand at trying differnt things with various tournaments this year.
Now the idea of a 5 week COS was a decision taken by last years council and was Ralph who suggested the single Division. This years Council supported his suggestion.

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2004, 06:22 PM
A reasonable assumption would be that the numbers are down due to BOTH of these factors.
No thats not a reasonable assumption.

There are at least 4 possibilities.
1) Numbers are down because its 2 rounds/day and because its 1 division.
2) Numbers are down because its 2 rounds/day and 1 division has no impact.
3) Numbers are down because of 1 division and 2 rounds/day has no impact.
4) Numbers are down due to factors other than 2 rounds/day and 1 division.

There is no reason to favour possibility 1 over possibilities 2 or 3.

Bob1
01-03-2004, 08:25 PM
No thats not a reasonable assumption.

There are at least 4 possibilities.
1) Numbers are down because its 2 rounds/day and because its 1 division.
2) Numbers are down because its 2 rounds/day and 1 division has no impact.
3) Numbers are down because of 1 division and 2 rounds/day has no impact.
4) Numbers are down due to factors other than 2 rounds/day and 1 division.

There is no reason to favour possibility 1 over possibilities 2 or 3.
Bill (and all)
I was at the event and I know >30 of the players entered quite well.
Only one commented on the fact that there was only division (but - with no disrespect to him - he probably wasn't aware it was 2004 either - because that doesn't matter to his chess)
25 entrants would still play if you doubled the entry fee and halved the prize money. (and probably if it was held outside in the rain) - "these die-hards" form the basis of our community and they expect us "adminitrators" to provide enough "cannon fodder" for them to go home thinking they had a good day.
It is a difficult equation to get both quantity and quality to these events.
If I knew the answers I would definitely sell them to you.

Facts:
Good Venue: (Bill do you happen to have these available for all years 1992 - 2003?) - I doubt this shows much
Advertising: I thought was as good as any year (except 2001 where CZ personally invited every Junior with a mailout - result lots of juniors)
Arbiter: They don't come any better than Ralph!
Prizes: Who actually playes for these except George!! - and he really works at it.! {mind you he plays just as much and just as hard for $1 - so I still put him in the die-hard bucket}


2 times on the available list had low numbers with 1 division MUST be considered a weak point. (btw NSWCA should be absolved from any criticism here as previously it was only one - in fact they have proved the reality)

Check out Amiel's profile - it says it all

"Whenever there is any doubt - there is no doubt."

arosar
03-03-2004, 04:19 PM
For results and next round, click here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nswca/cofsyd04.htm

AR

samspade
03-03-2004, 08:57 PM
anyone want to join me in a few predictions?

1 David W Dick 1896 [2] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [2]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [2] 1 : 0 Jason Chan 1883 [2]
3 Ilija Ilic 1923 [2] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [2]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [1.5] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [2]
5 James Cronan 1760 [1.5] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [1.5]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [1.5] .5 : .5 Jason Hu 1590 [1.5]
7 Vincent Suttor 1828 [1] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [1.5]
8 Jose Escribano 1573 [1] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [1]
9 Raymond Song 1790 [1] 1 : 0 Angela Song 1521 [1]

Trent Parker
03-03-2004, 09:18 PM
What?? Lose to a 1600 player as white, lose to a 1500 player as black.... Then get a 1900 player as black??

What can i say? Bring it on!!! :drool:
:hmm: does anyone out there know what Henk Jens plays as White?? :evil:

i might actually prepare!!! :eek:

Trent Parker
03-03-2004, 10:07 PM
I really don't mind... as i said... bring it on!!

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2004, 10:42 PM
looking at the crosstable, it looks to me like the reason the draw happened that way is that Henk Jens had floated up the previous round to play schultz-pedersen so he couldn't float up for a second consecutive round, and this contributed to the chaos. Can Oracle Gletsos or Charles Zworestine enlighten us on this?
Firstly let me say that if I actually had the SP files I would know who played what color in what round, however since thats impossible to determine from the web page I will have to make some assumptions in the following regarding color matches.

Notice the two half points cannot play each other since they already played, hence they both move down into the next lower score group. This then is called a hetrogenrous score bracket (contains players with different scores) as opposed to a homogeneous score bracket (contains pleysr all with the same score).

When pairing a hetrogenoius group, the group is broken into two groups called S1 and S2 where S1 is all pleysr who moved down from the previous group. In this case these two players are then paired with players from the Zero group.

Now as you noted Jens floated up in the previous round hence he should not float up this round unless it is absolutely unavoidable. It is avoiadable.
Hence the next highest rated player on zero, Greenwood floats up. He is also a color match so Keuning plays Greenwood. Next Miransa is paired, preferably with Field, Tracey, Nguyen etc in that order. I cannot tell from the web page but I assume Field and Tracey are not color matches hence Nguyen ends up playing Miranda because they are a color match.

This leaves the remaining group of 8 players to be paired.
Because this group represents a homgenois group they are split into two groups S1 and S2 where the 4 highest rated are in S1 in rating order and the remaining 4 are in S2 also in rating order.

S1 therefore consists of Jens, Field, Tracey and Baker in that order.
S2 consists of Parker, Talpade, Frerer and Sands in that order.
Jens therefore plays Parker if they are a color match. I assume they are since SP paired them that way.
Talpade is I assume not a color match ( he wants Black) hence he does not play Field or Tracey want an opponent who wants White.
This results in Frerer playing Field, Sands playing Tracey and Baker playing Talpade.

arosar
04-03-2004, 08:19 AM
Here are mine. Chan to beat Canfell and me mate Romy, former journo and arbiter in the Philippines, to beat Hu.

1 David W Dick 1896 [2] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [2]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [2] 0 : 1 Jason Chan 1883 [2]
3 Ilija Ilic 1923 [2] 0 : 1 Ben Lee 1859 [2]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [1.5] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [2]
5 James Cronan 1760 [1.5] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [1.5]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [1.5] 1 : 0 Jason Hu 1590 [1.5]
7 Vincent Suttor 1828 [1] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [1.5]
8 Jose Escribano 1573 [1] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [1]
9 Raymond Song 1790 [1] 1 : 0 Angela Song 1521 [1]

For the title, I predict Xie to win.

AR

Rhubarb
05-03-2004, 12:34 AM
Thanks for your tips, arosar.

Naturally, I have different thoughts on this matter (and others.....)

Greg Canfell


Here are mine. Chan to beat Canfell and me mate Romy, former journo and arbiter in the Philippines, to beat Hu.

1 David W Dick 1896 [2] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [2]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [2] 0 : 1 Jason Chan 1883 [2]
3 Ilija Ilic 1923 [2] 0 : 1 Ben Lee 1859 [2]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [1.5] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [2]
5 James Cronan 1760 [1.5] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [1.5]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [1.5] 1 : 0 Jason Hu 1590 [1.5]
7 Vincent Suttor 1828 [1] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [1.5]
8 Jose Escribano 1573 [1] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [1]
9 Raymond Song 1790 [1] 1 : 0 Angela Song 1521 [1]

For the title, I predict Xie to win.

AR

arosar
05-03-2004, 09:43 AM
Yeaahhh...sorry mate. It's just that Mr Chan's going great at the moment and will be very determined. Here's a tip though: play 1. e4.

AR

Goughfather
05-03-2004, 08:22 PM
Nah, play 1. a3.

That said, I expect Greg to win in 32 moves.

Rhubarb
08-03-2004, 01:20 PM
Sadly, arosar was right, and myself and Goughfather were wrong.

:wall:


Nah, play 1. a3.

That said, I expect Greg to win in 32 moves.

arosar
08-03-2004, 01:35 PM
FMD!! I shoulda freakin' made a bet!! Whaddya expect mate? Jason studies chess all the time. He's president of his chess club, gives simuls, does a bit of teaching chess, and writes some pretty good annotations. This bloke is more mathematical genius than some math genii here.

AR

arosar
12-03-2004, 03:03 PM
Boys, yo boys. Here's me tips. Samspade, you there mate?


1 Ilija Ilic 1923 [4] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [3.5]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [3] 1 : 0 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [3]
3 George Winter 1876 [3*] 0 : 1 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [3]
4 Gareth Charles 2037 [3*] 0 : 1 Jason Chan 1883 [3]
5 David W Dick 1896 [3] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [3]
6 James Cronan 1760 [2.5] 0 : 1 Jason Hu 1590 [3]
7 Justin Huang 1596 [2.5] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [2.5]
8 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [2.5] 1 : 0 Frank Kresinger 1478 [2.5]
9 Aram Sandalciyan 1677 [2.5] 0 : 1 Ben Lee 1859 [2.5]
10 Raymond Song 1790 [2] .5 : .5 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [2.5]
11 Vincent Suttor 1828 [2] 1 : 0 Angela Song 1521 [2]

15 Jose Escribano 1573 [2] .5 : .5 Norman Greenwood 1443 [2]

I tip Chan to again cause an upset.

AR

arosar
12-03-2004, 06:55 PM
FMD!! doesn't the NSWCA have a drive to web strategy. A prominent chess player, currently in this tourn doesn't know the nswca.org.au site!

AR

arosar
12-03-2004, 07:25 PM
Boys....one of the laddies above needs some help with progamming....qbasic or cbasic, or whatever. He needs to know how to exit a loop or something....can you IT fellas give some tips?

AR

PHAT
12-03-2004, 10:12 PM
of course needless to add Xie is going to give Ilic a total caning:owned: :lol: Ilic in the lead-what a joke:rolleyes:

Hey, that is uncalled for. I don't know Ilic, but if he is leading, good on him. You are just being nasty - I wonder why.

BTW, can you beat Ilic?

PHAT
12-03-2004, 11:13 PM
Go suck a turnip Sweeney-you'd be lucky to beat an orang-utan if it was playing blindfold

Swallow!

Garvinator
12-03-2004, 11:15 PM
working on your diplomacy skills hey guys :eek:

Trent Parker
13-03-2004, 12:42 PM
Go suck a turnip Sweeney-you'd be lucky to beat an orang-utan if it was playing blindfold

Hey now, don't go beating on us lowly rated people!! :D

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2004, 04:10 PM
On a less vitriolic note than my previous remarks, I posted that about Ilic just due to the slight absurdity of the fact that he is leading in a field including Xie and Canfell and is going to be totally outclassed-if not on sunday, then further down the track.
Yes, he very likely is going to be outclassed later in the event, but there is nothing absurd about his leading the event if you look at who he played in comparison to who Xie and Canfell have played.

Xie is where he is because he drew with Dick a person he outrates by 343 points.
Greg lost to Chan.
Ilic beat Chan.

His leading in round 4 isnt that unreasonable.
Now if he is still leading after round 6, then you would have a point. ;)

Trent Parker
13-03-2004, 04:46 PM
Doesn't Ilic always play KID/Pirc/modern/KIA? or do i have him confuse with someone else?

Trent Parker
13-03-2004, 04:50 PM
sorry, I didn't mean to appear to do that, it's just I was looking for an insult and the easiest target I could find at the time was Matthew's chess ability. But you needn't be offended anyway Trent, you're better than old Australopithecus any day...

I know, I know, Hence the smile in my previous post. I am not offended. just joking around. ;)

PHAT
13-03-2004, 05:55 PM
Btw, you must be one of the few NSW players that doesn't know Ilic. If you did maybe you wouldn't have been so outraged by my post.

I meant I do not know him personally. :)

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2004, 12:04 PM
Round 5 results

1 Ilija Ilic 1923 [4] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [3.5]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [3] 1 : 0 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [3]
3 George Winter 1876 [3*] 0.5 : 0.5 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [3]
4 Gareth Charles 2037 [3*] 1 : 0 Jason Chan 1883 [3]
5 David W Dick 1896 [3] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [3]
6 James Cronan 1760 [2.5] 0 : 1 Jason Hu 1590 [3]
7 Justin Huang 1596 [2.5] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [2.5]
8 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [2.5] 1 : 0 Frank Kresinger 1478 [2.5]
9 Aram Sandalciyan 1677 [2.5] 0 : 1 Ben Lee 1859 [2.5]
10 Raymond Song 1790 [2] 1 : 0 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [2.5]
11 Vincent Suttor 1828 [2] 1 : 0 Angela Song 1521 [2]

15 Jose Escribano 1573 [2] 1 : 0 Norman Greenwood 1443 [2]

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2004, 12:19 PM
Round 6 results:

1. Xie, George 0.5 - 0.5 Canfell, Greg
2. Dick, David 1 - 0 Charles, Gareth
3. Hu, jason 1 - 0 Ilic, Ilija
4. Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper 0.5 - 0.5 Capilitan, Romeo
5. Lee, Ben 0.5 - 0.5 Ayvazyan, Armen
6. Chan, Jason 1- 0 Winter, George
7. Huddleston, Heather 1 - 0 Song, Raymond
8. Rachmadi, Herman 1 - 0 Escribano, Jose
9. Bleicher, Horst 0 - 1 Fell, Lloyd S.
10. Field, Andrew 0 -1 Sandalciyan, Aram
11. Kresinger, Frank 0 -1 Cronan, James
12. Mendes da Costa, Alex 1 - 0 Huang, Justin
13. Sewell, R 0 - 1 Hor, Stanton
14. Tomas, Tom 1 - 0 Bisson, Danny Wayne
15. Song, Angela 1 - 0 Art, Carl
16. Miranda, Adrian 1 -0 Nabulsi, Derek
17. Greenwood, Norm 1 - 0 Parker, Trent

Trent Parker
15-03-2004, 10:34 PM
mmmmmmm I played really crap against Norm. Blundered a Q!!

In the earlier game I was playing ultra-aggressive due to me being p**sed off at losing my phone on the s**tyrail bus replacing the southern highlands trains. I came through with a huge (perhaps unsound) attack. The game was over in 21 moves. Poor kid.

Maybe I should make myself p**sed off more often. It may do my chess some good :lol:

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2004, 10:34 PM
better than being just plain p**sed like Alekhine:)
I think their would be a lot of chess players who wish they could play chess as well as Alekhine when he was drunk because it still would be considerably better than when they are sober. :clap:

arosar
18-03-2004, 04:10 PM
OK sammo, let's go.


1 Jason Hu 1590 [5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [5]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [4.5] 1 : 0 David W Dick 1896 [5]
3 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [4]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [4] 0 : 1 Jason Chan 1883 [4]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [4] : Ben Lee 1859 [4]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [4] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [4]
7 Ilija Ilic 1923 [4] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [4]
8 George Winter 1876 [3.5] .5 : .5 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [3.5]
9 James Cronan 1760 [3.5] .5 : .5 Vincent Suttor 1828 [3.5]
10 Aram Sandalciyan 1677 [3.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [3]
11 Angela Song 1521 [3] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [3]
12 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [3]
14 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [3]

17 Trent Parker 1181 [2] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [2]

22 Ralph B Seberry 2172 [1] 1 : 0 Samantha Frerer [0]

AR

samspade
20-03-2004, 12:47 PM
OK sammo, let's go.


1 Jason Hu 1590 [5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [5]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [4.5] 1 : 0 David W Dick 1896 [5]
3 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [4]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [4] 0 : 1 Jason Chan 1883 [4]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [4] : Ben Lee 1859 [4]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [4] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [4]
7 Ilija Ilic 1923 [4] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [4]
8 George Winter 1876 [3.5] .5 : .5 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [3.5]
9 James Cronan 1760 [3.5] .5 : .5 Vincent Suttor 1828 [3.5]
10 Aram Sandalciyan 1677 [3.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [3]
11 Angela Song 1521 [3] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [3]
12 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [3]
14 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [3]

17 Trent Parker 1181 [2] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [2]

22 Ralph B Seberry 2172 [1] 1 : 0 Samantha Frerer [0]

AR
1 Jason Hu 1590 [5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [5]
2 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [4.5] 1 : 0 David W Dick 1896 [5]
3 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4] 0 : 1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [4]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [4] 1 : 0 Jason Chan 1883 [4]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [4] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [4]
6 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [4] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [4]
7 Ilija Ilic 1923 [4] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [4]
8 George Winter 1876 [3.5] 1 : 0 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [3.5]
9 James Cronan 1760 [3.5] 1 : 0 Vincent Suttor 1828 [3.5]
10 Aram Sandalciyan 1677 [3.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [3]
11 Angela Song 1521 [3] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [3]
12 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 1 : 0 Horst Bleicher 1605 [3]
14 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [3]

arosar
25-03-2004, 08:20 AM
Sammo, let's go again mate.



1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [5.5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [7]
2 Jason Hu 1590 [6] 0 : 1 David W Dick 1896 [6]
3 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [6] .5 : .5 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [5.5]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [5] 0 : 1 Vincent Suttor 1828 [5]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [5] 1 : 0 James Cronan 1760 [5]
6 Ilija Ilic 1923 [5] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [5]
7 Jason Chan 1883 [5] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [5]
8 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4.5] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [5]
9 Justin Huang 1596 [4.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [4.5]
10 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [4.5] 0 : 1 Tom Tomas 1686 [4]

13 Angela Song 1521 [4] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [4]

16 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [3]
17 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Michael J Tracey 1373 [3]
18 Anthony V Keuning 1565 [3] 1 : 0 Trent Parker 1181 [3]

AR

samspade
25-03-2004, 09:01 AM
Sammo, let's go again mate.



1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [5.5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [7]
2 Jason Hu 1590 [6] 0 : 1 David W Dick 1896 [6]
3 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [6] .5 : .5 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [5.5]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [5] 0 : 1 Vincent Suttor 1828 [5]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [5] 1 : 0 James Cronan 1760 [5]
6 Ilija Ilic 1923 [5] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [5]
7 Jason Chan 1883 [5] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [5]
8 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4.5] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [5]
9 Justin Huang 1596 [4.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [4.5]
10 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [4.5] 0 : 1 Tom Tomas 1686 [4]

13 Angela Song 1521 [4] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [4]

16 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [3]
17 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Michael J Tracey 1373 [3]
18 Anthony V Keuning 1565 [3] 1 : 0 Trent Parker 1181 [3]

AR
1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [5.5] 0.5 : 0.5 George Xie 2239 [7]
2 Jason Hu 1590 [6] 0 : 1 David W Dick 1896 [6]
3 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [6] 1 : 0 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [5.5]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [5] 1 : 0 Vincent Suttor 1828 [5]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [5] 1 : 0 James Cronan 1760 [5]
6 Ilija Ilic 1923 [5] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [5]
7 Jason Chan 1883 [5] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [5]
8 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4.5] 0.5 : 0.5 Heather Huddleston 1616 [5]
9 Justin Huang 1596 [4.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [4.5]
10 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [4.5] 1 : 0 Tom Tomas 1686 [4]

13 Angela Song 1521 [4] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [4]

16 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [3]
17 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Michael J Tracey 1373 [3]
18 Anthony V Keuning 1565 [3] 1 : 0 Trent Parker 1181 [3]

samspade
25-03-2004, 09:03 AM
Sammo, let's go again mate.



1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [5.5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [7]
2 Jason Hu 1590 [6] 0 : 1 David W Dick 1896 [6]
3 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [6] .5 : .5 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [5.5]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [5] 0 : 1 Vincent Suttor 1828 [5]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [5] 1 : 0 James Cronan 1760 [5]
6 Ilija Ilic 1923 [5] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [5]
7 Jason Chan 1883 [5] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [5]
8 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4.5] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [5]
9 Justin Huang 1596 [4.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [4.5]
10 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [4.5] 0 : 1 Tom Tomas 1686 [4]

13 Angela Song 1521 [4] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [4]

16 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [3]
17 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Michael J Tracey 1373 [3]
18 Anthony V Keuning 1565 [3] 1 : 0 Trent Parker 1181 [3]

AR
where did you get the draw from?

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 11:08 AM
where did you get the draw from?
It's on the NSWCA web site.

arosar
25-03-2004, 11:22 AM
It's on the NSWCA web site.

...which is www.nswca.org.au

Bill, can you go back to Arbiters'? I wanna ask you a question there.

AR

Trent Parker
26-03-2004, 07:01 AM
WTF?? i beat R sewell in round 7 lost to angela song in round 8

ursogr8
26-03-2004, 11:18 AM
Sammo, let's go again mate.



1 Jesper Schultz-Pedersen 2198 [5.5] 0 : 1 George Xie 2239 [7]
2 Jason Hu 1590 [6] 0 : 1 David W Dick 1896 [6]
3 Gregory J Canfell 2201 [6] .5 : .5 Romeo Capilitan 1981 [5.5]
4 Armen Ayvazyan 2083 [5] 0 : 1 Vincent Suttor 1828 [5]
5 Gareth Charles 2037 [5] 1 : 0 James Cronan 1760 [5]
6 Ilija Ilic 1923 [5] 1 : 0 Herman Rachmadi 1756 [5]
7 Jason Chan 1883 [5] 1 : 0 Ben Lee 1859 [5]
8 Lloyd S Fell 1730 [4.5] 1 : 0 Heather Huddleston 1616 [5]
9 Justin Huang 1596 [4.5] 0 : 1 Raymond Song 1790 [4.5]
10 Alex Mendes da Costa 1620 [4.5] 0 : 1 Tom Tomas 1686 [4]

13 Angela Song 1521 [4] 1 : 0 Adrian Miranda 1315 [4]

16 Norman Greenwood 1443 [3] 0 : 1 R Sewell 1809 [3]
17 Jose Escribano 1573 [3] 1 : 0 Michael J Tracey 1373 [3]
18 Anthony V Keuning 1565 [3] 1 : 0 Trent Parker 1181 [3]

AR

Nicely competitive. The average of absolute deviations of pairing differences is 201.

arosar
26-03-2004, 11:36 AM
which means exactly?

AR

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 11:38 AM
which means exactly?

AR
that the round is not a waste of most ppls times because the results cant be predicted before hand easily. Also it means that the high majority of players will feel that they had a competitive match.

arosar
26-03-2004, 11:45 AM
Hey gray....you're a QLD'er right? How come you mob haven't had anything controversial on this BB yet? You're a bit boring aren't you? There must be something worth fighting about QLD chess. It's just that I am feeling a bit sorry for you always sticking your nose in mexican and NSW affairs - not that you're not welcome or anything

AR

Rincewind
26-03-2004, 11:56 AM
Hey gray....you're a QLD'er right? How come you mob haven't had anything controversial on this BB yet? You're a bit boring aren't you? There must be something worth fighting about QLD chess. It's just that I am feeling a bit sorry for you always sticking your nose in mexican and NSW affairs - not that you're not welcome or anything

Perhaps you just weren't paying attention.

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 12:19 PM
Hey gray....you're a QLD'er right? How come you mob haven't had anything controversial on this BB yet? You're a bit boring aren't you? There must be something worth fighting about QLD chess. It's just that I am feeling a bit sorry for you always sticking your nose in mexican and NSW affairs - not that you're not welcome or anything

AR

Oh arosar, if you only knew what ggray and I have been cooking up in the PM's.. something far more controversial than your southern states affairs. Too controversial for the BB at this stage ;)

arosar
26-03-2004, 01:39 PM
Oooohhhh....I can't wait. Can you give us a bit of a teaser then? C'mon . . . !!

AR

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 03:04 PM
Hey gray....you're a QLD'er right? How come you mob haven't had anything controversial on this BB yet? You're a bit boring aren't you? There must be something worth fighting about QLD chess. It's just that I am feeling a bit sorry for you always sticking your nose in mexican and NSW affairs - not that you're not welcome or anything

AR
i feel for you arosar, i really do. as i lamented a while ago, no one from the caq committee posts on here on anything. When i got stuck into the caq calendar last year, Ian Murray was able to post then, but hasnt posted since :whistle: .

I wish more of our committee would post more regularly on here. I personally dont think things are well run up here, but that is my opinion. I think there could be massive improvement. Slowly things are coming around, with plans to resurrect interclub play in a month or so.

Alot of the stuff discussed on here, when it is a serious issue, i see as important for each state.

For instance, starters comments about junk rounds and wasted parts of tournaments. As i have commented before, i dont like these wasted rounds and playing players who i dont realisiticly have a chance of playing even a decent game against.

I have stated my idea for a few tournaments that could get around this, but they werent enthusiasticly supported. but starter and my concerns are for all tournaments that are played nationwide. In my opinion starter and i use examples that are from our local area cause we saw the result occur. I see the issue of uncompetitive tournament games as a major issue in australian chess.

ursogr8
26-03-2004, 03:31 PM
which means exactly?

AR

Which means AR you should have been reading the thread, on this board and the old, on "How competitve do you want it to be".
Summary available on request.

starter.

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 05:11 PM
Oooohhhh....I can't wait. Can you give us a bit of a teaser then? C'mon . . . !!

AR

I already did a few days back on the volunteers thread I think it was...

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 05:19 PM
I already did a few days back on the volunteers thread I think it was...
i didnt see anything of note from you in the volunteers thread that related to caq ;)

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 07:49 PM
Of course not.. after all, to retain my secret identity I couldn't even give away I was associated with CAQ - it's good because I've travelled around and am familiar with a lot of players and administrators in NSW, VIC and SA too, so you could never be sure of where I am right now!

(I'm even a tad jealous at all the attention CL has received, lol!) :cool:

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 08:07 PM
Of course not.. after all, to retain my secret identity I couldn't even give away I was associated with CAQ
you will have to try harder after you comments regarding darling downs and the 2004 grand prix ;)

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 08:21 PM
Hehe Garvin.. even so, I welcome anyone's detective work - I have after all left a host of clues from all my posts.. happy deciphering.

Kerry Stead
27-03-2004, 03:22 AM
Hehe Garvin.. even so, I welcome anyone's detective work - I have after all left a host of clues from all my posts.. happy deciphering.

I think I deciphered things a LONG time ago .... :p

Alan Shore
27-03-2004, 10:48 AM
I think I deciphered things a LONG time ago .... :p

Well aren't you a genius for me having told you! :clap: :rolleyes:

Bob1
28-03-2004, 09:29 PM
A strong field (mid-point 1800) of 32 players took part in the City of Sydney Lightning Championship.
George Xie was in a class of his own and blitzed the field to finish on 9.5 from 11 only giving away 3 (strategic) draws and finishing 1.5 points ahead of his nearest rivals Ed Agulto and Johnny Bolens (on 8.0).
The 11 rounds gave all players an opportunity to make up for the odd mistake or two (Bolens lost his first two games)
It was again a pleasure to be part of a good quick blitz event and I would like to congratulate all players for the way they conducted themselves throughout the event. All games were decided on the board as there were no disputes. Players reset the pieces on the boards each round to allow us to achieve 4 rounds and a 5 minute break in each hour of the event.





City Of Sydney Lightning - 2004 - Round 11
Standings
Place Name Feder Rtg Loc Club Score M-Buch. Buch. Progr.

1 Xie, George NSW 2297 9.5 63.0 76.0 60.5
2-3 Agulto, Edgardo NSW 2113 8 63.0 77.5 51.5
Bolens, Johny NSW 2029 8 49.5 60.0 41.0
4-5 Yu, Ronald NSW 2151 Junior 7.5 60.5 75.0 46.5
Song, Raymond NSW 1843 Junior 7.5 56.5 67.0 46.0
6-9 Hu, Jason NSW 1700 Junior 7 62.5 77.0 50.0
Chan, Jason NSW 1957 7 62.0 75.5 44.0
Capilitan, Romeo NSW 2024 7 60.0 74.0 45.0
Suttor, Vincent NSW 1913 Junior 7 59.0 69.5 44.5
10-11 Rosario, Amiel NSW 1702 6.5 51.5 64.5 36.5
Huang, Justin NSW 1710 Junior 6.5 51.0 60.0 35.5
12-17 Flatow, A (Fred) NSW 2245 6 55.5 69.5 37.5
Ilic, Ilija NSW 1998 6 52.0 62.0 37.0
Kordahi, Nicholas NSW 1717 6 51.5 60.0 32.5
Camer, Angelito NSW 2111 6 51.0 62.0 32.0
Huddleston, Heather NSW 1700 Junior 6 51.0 60.5 33.0
Dick, David W NSW 1961 6 46.5 57.0 35.0
18 Rachmadi, Herman NSW 1826 5.5 47.5 56.5 32.0
19-25 Muller, Henning NSW 1906 5 55.0 65.5 36.0
Jens, Henk W NSW 1971 5 54.0 66.0 35.0
Ghenzer, Charles NSW 2126 5 49.0 57.5 28.0
Redgrave, John NSW 1811 5 43.5 54.0 29.0
Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 1717 5 43.5 52.0 30.0
Escribano, Jose NSW 1654 5 41.0 48.5 26.0
Nguyen, Joseph NSW 1423 Junior 5 39.5 46.5 27.0
26 Fell, Lloyd S NSW 1793 4.5 36.5 44.5 29.0
27 Greenwood, Norman NSW 1540 4 37.5 45.5 18.0
28 Yu, Colman NSW 1700 3 41.5 50.5 19.0
29 Parker, Trent NSW 1265 2.5 35.0 42.5 12.0
30 Sewell, R NSW 1572 2 42.0 51.0 14.0
31-32 Kresinger, Frank NSW 1538 1 44.5 54.5 8.0
Miranda, Adrian NSW 1351 Junior 1 44.0 54.0 5.0

Cross Table
No Name Rtg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Xie, George 17:W 11:W 8:W 3:W 13:W 5:D 12:W 23:W 7:D 15:D 2:W
2. Flatow, A (Fred) 18:W 13:D 15:D 16:W 23:L 9:L 3:L 26:W 20:W 14:W 1:L
3. Yu, Ronald 19:W 12:W 10:W 1:L 15:D 23:L 2:W 13:W 21:W 5:L 16:W
4. Ghenzer, Charles 20:W 15:L 13:L 21:L 28:W 24:L 30:W 22:L 29:W 25:W 11:L
5. Agulto, Edgardo 21:W 16:W 23:W 13:L 10:W 1:D 7:D 12:W 8:W 3:W 15:L
6. Camer, Angelito 22:L 24:L 28:W 26:W 16:W 13:L 19:L 18:W 9:W 21:L 14:W
7. Bolens, Johny 23:L 25:L 29:W 27:W 17:W 10:W 5:D 9:W 1:D 22:W 8:W
8. Capilitan, Romeo 24:W 22:W 1:L 15:L 18:W 11:W 9:W 14:W 5:L 23:W 7:L
9. Ilic, Ilija 25:W 23:L 19:W 17:W 12:L 2:W 8:L 7:L 6:L 27:W 30:W
10. Jens, Henk W 26:W 30:W 3:L 18:W 5:L 7:L 21:L 17:W 22:L 28:W 19:L
11. Dick, David W 27:W 1:L 20:W 23:L 25:W 8:L 26:W 21:L 19:L 31:W 4:W
12. Chan, Jason 28:W 3:L 21:W 22:W 9:W 15:W 1:L 5:L 13:L 24:W 23:W
13. Suttor, Vincent 29:W 2:D 4:W 5:W 1:L 6:W 23:L 3:L 12:W 19:W 21:D
14. Muller, Henning 30:L 26:W 22:L 24:W 21:W 25:W 15:W 8:L 23:L 2:L 6:L
15. Song, Raymond 31:W 4:W 2:D 8:W 3:D 12:L 14:L 20:W 24:W 1:D 5:W
16. Rachmadi, Herman 32:W 5:L 24:W 2:L 6:L 30:D 22:L 29:W 25:W 26:W 3:L
17. Redgrave, John 1:L 27:W 30:W 9:L 7:L 28:W 24:L 10:L 32:W 20:L 31:W
18. Fell, Lloyd S 2:L 29:W 25:W 10:L 8:L 27:W 20:L 6:L 31:W 32:D 24:L
19. Kordahi, Nicholas 3:L 28:W 9:L 30:D 22:D 29:W 6:W 24:L 11:W 13:L 10:W
20. Mendes da Costa, Alex 4:L 31:W 11:L 25:L 30:W 32:W 18:W 15:L 2:L 17:W 22:L
21. Huang, Justin 5:L 32:W 12:L 4:W 14:L 31:W 10:W 11:W 3:L 6:W 13:D
22. Rosario, Amiel 6:W 8:L 14:W 12:L 19:D 26:L 16:W 4:W 10:W 7:L 20:W
23. Hu, Jason 7:W 9:W 5:L 11:W 2:W 3:W 13:W 1:L 14:W 8:L 12:L
24. Huddleston, Heather 8:L 6:W 16:L 14:L 27:W 4:W 17:W 19:W 15:L 12:L 18:W
25. Yu, Colman 9:L 7:W 18:L 20:W 11:L 14:L 31:L 32:L 16:L 4:L 27:W
26. Escribano, Jose 10:L 14:L 31:W 6:L 29:W 22:W 11:L 2:L 28:W 16:L 32:W
27. Sewell, R 11:L 17:L 32:W 7:L 24:L 18:L 29:W 28:L 30:L 9:L 25:L
28. Greenwood, Norman 12:L 19:L 6:L 31:W 4:L 17:L 32:W 27:W 26:L 10:L 29:W
29. Kresinger, Frank 13:L 18:L 7:L 32:W 26:L 19:L 27:L 16:L 4:L 30:L 28:L
30. Nguyen, Joseph 14:W 10:L 17:L 19:D 20:L 16:D 4:L 31:W 27:W 29:W 9:L
31. Miranda, Adrian 15:L 20:L 26:L 28:L 32:L 21:L 25:W 30:L 18:L 11:L 17:L
32. Parker, Trent 16:L 21:L 27:L 29:L 31:W 20:L 28:L 25:W 17:L 18:D 26:L

arosar
29-03-2004, 10:00 AM
Thanks for the tourn Bob. I spotted an itsy bitsy little potentially controversial issue - but let's not talk about that. I'll save the NSWCA from this one.

While I am here I'd like to announce the return to Australian shores of strong Filipino player, Lito Camer. While in RP, Camer participated in the National eliminations for the Philippine squad. He made it into the semis - which are due to be held this June. Unfortunately, he will no longer be able to compete.

Camer reports that the state of Philippine chess is as bad as the Campo days. Unlike Australia, chess is recognised as a sport in RP. That's why the government body Philippine Sports Commission provided funding to our World Youth teams. But, with typical Filipino sleight-of-hand, no monies were distributed to the young team-members. They did not receive a single centavo. God knows where it all went!

AR

Lucena
31-03-2004, 10:54 AM
Well, another lemon of a tournament for me is over :boohoo: Oh well, I got $50 :owned: Covers just over half of my entry fee :owned: well it's better than the $20 some people got, and I wasn't even expecting anything...probly didn't deserve to win anything, the way I played some of my games... :doh:

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 11:10 AM
hey greg canfell. I was playing over some of the games from the city of sydney and i went looking for your game against Xie. Umm care to explain the length :lol:

Rhubarb
31-03-2004, 11:14 PM
gg, you know if you go asking for excuses you're going to get a litany:

I was tired.
I wasn't feeling very well.
I wasn't motivated enough to find the energy to fight.
I was Black in a position I didn't understand very well.
He offered the draw.
THE DOG DIED!!!!!!
IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Last part is John Belushi in The Blues Brothers. I wish I could remember the whole monologue.)

Rincewind
31-03-2004, 11:23 PM
THE DOG DIED!!!!!!
IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Last part is John Belushi in The Blues Brothers. I wish I could remember the whole monologue.)

I think

"There was a flood, earthquake, LOCUSTS!!! "

Was in there somewhere. :D

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 11:24 PM
gg, you know if you go asking for excuses you're going to get a litany:

I was tired.
I wasn't feeling very well.
I wasn't motivated enough to find the energy to fight.
I was Black in a position I didn't understand very well.
He offered the draw.
THE DOG DIED!!!!!!
IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Last part is John Belushi in The Blues Brothers. I wish I could remember the whole monologue.)
is that it, come i expected better from you ;) excuses that is.

Bill Gletsos
31-03-2004, 11:26 PM
is that it, come i expected better from you ;) excuses that is.
Maybe Greg was too occupied working on the who is chesslover attack. ;)

Rhubarb
31-03-2004, 11:46 PM
Maybe Greg was too occupied working on the who is chesslover attack. ;)

Amusing though the who is chesslover attack was (never had so many free kicks in my life :owned: ), I'm pretty sure I'd already drawn with Xie before it commenced.

Rhubarb
01-04-2004, 02:04 AM
I think

"There was a flood, earthquake, LOCUSTS!!! "

Was in there somewhere. :D

Thanks Baz, with that I had enough to do a successful search:

"It wasn't my fault. Honest! I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood!!! LOCUSTS!!!! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!!!!"

You can download the .wav file from
http://www.wavsource.com/movies/blues_brothers.htm

Lucena
01-04-2004, 10:38 AM
WTF?? i beat R sewell in round 7 lost to angela song in round 8

Sewell was playing well below his rating and Angela can be dangerous as I have found out, to my cost

chesslover
01-04-2004, 11:44 PM
Unfortunately paul, all you know is Ronald's and samspades view. You dont know other peoples. To suggest there would be 10 others like them is unfounded without any actual further evidence.

I could equally argue it the lack of 2 divisions that effected it.

bill there is a rule of thumb for people who manage retail outlets

for every customer who complaints there are 10 who do share the same view but do not complain

Bill Gletsos
01-04-2004, 11:53 PM
bill there is a rule of thumb for people who manage retail outlets

for every customer who complaints there are 10 who do share the same view but do not complain
Yes, But I heard people complained about the lack of 2 divisions.
All I'm saying is because there were a number of differences between this years COS and the last few COS's then its difficult to know which change had the most effect on numbers.
Perhaps those that dont like two rounds per day were offset by those that do but those that like multiple divisions were not offset by those that prefer one. After all unlike the State Championship the top division of the COS has not been closed.

chesslover
02-04-2004, 12:03 AM
Yes, But I heard people complained about the lack of 2 divisions.
All I'm saying is because there were a number of differences between this years COS and the last few COS's then its difficult to know which change had the most effect on numbers.
Perhaps those that dont like two rounds per day were offset by those that do but those that like multiple divisions were not offset by those that prefer one. After all unlike the State Championship the top division of the COS has not been closed.
how will you find out the answer :confused:

send out another survey to us directtly or at the COS.

You said that the survey showed that people wanted a 2 round per day tournament. So why such a low turn out dude?

Peter parr said that this year was the lowest number ever in 15 years of COS. He also said that highest number ever was 94 in 4 divisions in the NSW chess centre in the CBD.

In his article he said "Advertising,location,format,entry fees,prizes,and other events not clashing are the ingredients for more entries in tournaments"

Bill Gletsos
02-04-2004, 12:09 AM
how will you find out the answer :confused:

send out another survey to us directtly or at the COS.
If Greg Canfell is right and there are a number of people behind the CL account then you are all a bunch of morons.
After all how the hell would you know what the people who didnt play think.


You said that the survey showed that people wanted a 2 round per day tournament. So why such a low turn out dude?
As I said maybe its lack of 2 divisions.

After all if you look back thru the figures for previous years the last time numbers were so low was also when their was only one division on 1998.

The last time there were 2 rounds a day was in 1995 when there were 80 players.


Peter parr said that this year was the lowest number ever in 15 years of COS. He also said that highest number ever was 94 in 4 divisions in the NSW chess centre in the CBD.

In his article he said "Advertising,location,format,entry fees,prizes,and other events not clashing are the ingredients for more entries in tournaments"
Its very easy to be wise after the event.
Perhaps Peter is just trying to justify a Chess Centre in the city.
However Parr fails to mention that in 2001 the numbers were 93 over 2 divisions.

ursogr8
02-04-2004, 07:49 AM
As I said maybe its lack of 2 divisions.

After all if you look back thru the figures for previous years the last time numbers were so low was also when their was only one division on 1998.

The last time there were 2 rounds a day was in 1995 when there were 80 players.



Curious how we often frame the same problem, or the same solution, in different words. But it seems from my reading of this thread that the COS is headed towards a redesign that incorporates the following features
> competitive games
>> quartiles of players
>>> many rating prizes.
Now where have I read about these before? (Rhetorical)

starter

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 09:49 AM
Now where have I read about these before? (Rhetorical)

starter
i know you said rhetorical ;) but i thought i would answer anyway, i dont know where you have seen it before, cause no one seems to be listening about your ideas of more competitive games etc :lol: :doh:

Rhubarb
02-04-2004, 11:01 AM
If Greg Canfell is right and there are a number of people behind the CL account then you are all a bunch of morons.

Well, yes I'm right, but I had nothing to do with this latest attack by CL. I plead apolitical immunity. No-one told me what was going on; I just worked it out myself.

arosar
02-04-2004, 11:57 AM
Well, yes I'm right, but I had nothing to do with this latest attack by CL. I plead apolitical immunity. No-one told me what was going on; I just worked it out myself.

Hey Greg...are you a fairly fast rapid player?

AR

Rhubarb
03-04-2004, 02:17 PM
Hey Greg...are you a fairly fast rapid player?

AR

How come Amiel, do you want me to play a simul against CL? :)

If this is an implicit invitation to play in the Teams Rapid, then thanks it's big of you to ask considering everything! Unfortunately I can't make it on Sunday, but best of luck.

P.S. I can't even remember the last time I played rapid chess, but I don't think I was that good at it.

arosar
03-04-2004, 02:41 PM
. . . it's big of you to ask considering everything!

Considering everything? You sound like a disgruntled ex-lover. Don't be such a drama queen man. All this is just a bit of fun.

AR