PDA

View Full Version : World Junior Selections Successful applicants



brett
15-05-2006, 11:00 PM
World U/20
Boys Girls
Tomek Rej Shannon Oliver

World U/18
Boys Girls
Christopher Wallis Alexandra Jule

World U/16
Boys Girls
James Obst Jessica Kinder

World U/14
Boys Girls
Zhigen Wilson Lin Angela Song

World U/12
Boys Girls
Raymond Song Sally Yu

World U/10
Boys Girls
Lawrence Matheson Megan Setiabudi


U/16 Olympiad
Christopher Wallis
Zhigen Wilson Lin
Rukman Vijayakumar
Ben Harris

Davidflude
16-05-2006, 11:02 AM
The selections look very good to me.

As always there will be some unlucky juniors who have missed out but this is unavoidable.

Congratulations to everyone who has been picked and to the selectors for making such a good fist of a difficult job.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-05-2006, 12:18 PM
What about Moulthun Ly?

MichaelBaron
16-05-2006, 01:15 PM
And what about Michelle Lee?

Has she given up chess:( ?

Jason Hu
16-05-2006, 01:58 PM
Interesting field... Raymond better win the U12, i've being bagging out his Indian rival on icc a lot. Haha

And Molton's just giving others a chance to play Igor :D

AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!!

jenni
16-05-2006, 03:02 PM
And what about Michelle Lee?

Has she given up chess:( ?

Has for some years!! (However I have it on good authority that she plans to return to chess when starting Uni in 2 years time (think it is 2 years - I've lost track).

jenni
16-05-2006, 03:17 PM
This is of course not the whole story - the ACF introduced the concept of multiple selections this year. i.e according to the by-law selectors can endorse more than one person to represent Australia.

The ones listed above are the primary selections (i.e get free accommodation and food ), but there will be multiple selections in each category.

I assume Brett will be adding the extra names when he gets time from his busy schedule.

brett
17-05-2006, 11:33 AM
Hi Jenni,

Yes the names selected are the Primary selections.... secondary selections will be listed tonight.

antichrist
17-05-2006, 11:40 AM
Me sticking my nose in everywhere! Now only choose those with sufficient bread behind them to carry the dream - otherwise the positions are wasted (unless you choose an overflow).

jenni
17-05-2006, 03:03 PM
Me sticking my nose in everywhere! Now only choose those with sufficient bread behind them to carry the dream - otherwise the positions are wasted (unless you choose an overflow).
Don't be silly Peter! Of course having money makes the whole exercise easier, but plenty of people have gone over with the aid of diligent fund-raising. NSW kids are supported very well by their JCL, and ACT kids, by Sport and Rec grants and the JCL, but it is amazing how much money you can make in a 3 month period selling chocolates! Libby obtained heaps of donations and sponsorship when she took Kayleigh - I think at one point she was in danger of making a profit.

So it is not hard -just takes a bit of get off the backside and do it.....

MichaelBaron
17-05-2006, 03:22 PM
Don't be silly Peter! Of course having money makes the whole exercise easier, but plenty of people have gone over with the aid of diligent fund-raising. NSW kids are supported very well by their JCL, and ACT kids, by Sport and Rec grants and the JCL, but it is amazing how much money you can make in a 3 month period selling chocolates! Libby obtained heaps of donations and sponsorship when she took Kayleigh - I think at one point she was in danger of making a profit.

So it is not hard -just takes a bit of get off the backside and do it.....


Good Point, Jenny:clap: and the more australian kidds will go overseas to get a taste of international chess, the better

I was under an impression that to seek donations (other than direct sponsorship), one has to be an incorporated organisation rather than an individual. Otherwise the collection activity could be semi-legal. I might be wrong though...:hmm:

jenni
17-05-2006, 03:41 PM
Good Point, Jenny:clap: and the more australian kidds will go overseas to get a taste of international chess, the better

I was under an impression that to seek donations (other than direct sponsorship), one has to be an incorporated organisation rather than an individual. Otherwise the collection activity could be semi-legal. I might be wrong though...:hmm:

You are correct - they were effectively "donations", but the way you do it is to ask for sponsorship, rather than donations. e.g. Libby sent out roughly 100 letters to every business she could think of - she asked for sponsorship for Kayleigh and received amazing things in return. Some companies sent money, some goods, which she used for raffles. No-one asked for anything in return, although Libby did use any of the sponsoing companies names when doing any publicity for Kayleigh and also took photos of Kayleigh overseas to do a report to the sponsors on return.

When it comes to chocolate of course it is "fund raising" - you earn a fairly hefty sum of money per box sold and boxes at work sell pretty quickly. Having them at chess comps (with the permission of the competition organiser) works very well as well.

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 04:21 PM
When it comes to chocolate of course it is "fund raising" - you earn a fairly hefty sum of money per box sold and boxes at work sell pretty quickly. Having them at chess comps (with the permission of the competition organiser) works very well as well.
especially when selling them for act purposes at nswca events;) :lol:

bunta
17-05-2006, 04:23 PM
The selections look very good to me.

As always there will be some unlucky juniors who have missed out but this is unavoidable.

Congratulations to everyone who has been picked and to the selectors for making such a good fist of a difficult job.

I agree, good selection and go aussie aussie, in world cup as well as chess! :D

jenni
17-05-2006, 04:41 PM
especially when selling them for act purposes at nswca events;) :lol:

:lol: We are very good at filling vacuums. Although I am sure the ACTJCL would like to point out that it was ACT parents not an official ACT venture.

By the way it looks like FIDE are going to introduce an under 8 division. They made the resolution in 2004. It didn't happen at Belfort and who knows what will happen in Batumi - no regulations are up and anything could happen. (even a change of venue).

From what I have heard the under 8 will happen in 2007 (at this point Drug speeds up his training :owned: )

MichaelBaron
18-05-2006, 11:29 AM
:lol: From what I have heard the under 8 will happen in 2007 (at this point Drug speeds up his training :owned: )


Under 8 Division...it is getting rediculous..If the trend continues we will end up with an U1 division soon. Will breastfeeding be aloud during the games? :hmm:

four four two
18-05-2006, 11:37 AM
Under8 division does sound a little extreme. Are we expecting kids under 8 to be 1800 strength,and if so why?:hmm:

That division will be a haven for pushy chess parents who are going to have burnt out kids that end up loathing chess and chess tournaments.:(

jenni
18-05-2006, 12:28 PM
Under8 division does sound a little extreme. Are we expecting kids under 8 to be 1800 strength,and if so why?:hmm:

That division will be a haven for pushy chess parents who are going to have burnt out kids that end up loathing chess and chess tournaments.:(

Its a hard one. Under 8's actually do like playing chess - we have an under 8 championships in Canberra and usually get quite big numbers to it. They are seriously cute!

I think if you are going to have pushy parents they are going to cause problems for their kids no matter what the age divisions. There is a fine line at that age between having a parent who is encouraging their child to do something they like and a parent who is pushing them to do it because the parent thinks it is good for them.

A parent who is going to ruin chess for a kid will do it to them when they are 10 or 12, as much as when they are 7 or 8.

From what I have read, psychologists maintain kids should not experience extreme competition at an early age, as it is unhealthy for them and that is the reason why things like Little Atheletics have personal bests, rather than putting the emphasis on winning. This does not seem to have reached the chess world, where the is a huge emphasis on getting good at an early age (continual race to be the youngest GM etc).

The other side of the coin is that if you don't capture and enthuse the kids in early primary school, then you lose them totally in year 5/6 or high school - too many other options that are better resourced. (sport, music, public speaking, academic Olympiads).

four four two
18-05-2006, 12:39 PM
I dont have a problem with having an under 8 category in local comps where its just about fun and participation,but at a world level it is another matter.
They are not intended as "fun" competitions.

At an international level the standards are expected to be significantly higher...they are meant to represent the best in the world and as such that would help pushy parents by giving legitimacy to their grandiose plans for their kids.

jenni
18-05-2006, 01:00 PM
I dont have a problem with having an under 8 category in local comps where its just about fun and participation,but at a world level it is another matter.
They are not intended as "fun" competitions.


I agree with this - the amount of stress at world events is huge and often generated by the pressure the kids put themseleves under, without parental expectations on top.


At an international level the standards are expected to be significantly higher...they are meant to represent the best in the world and as such that would help pushy parents by giving legitimacy to their grandiose plans for their kids.
You are going to get nice supportive non-pushy parents taking their kids over and you are going to get pushy monsters who should never be given a licence to go near a kid. Unfortunately you get them in the under 10 and under 12 divisions as well. What we should be doing is creating the same sort of standards in the junior chess environment as they have in other junior sports.

I can remember in Sydney in 2002 abusing then ACF President Graeme Gardiner that if a certain person (a Melbourne parent) yelled at their child once more, he had to do something about it.

That is the problem in Junior chess - we all see parents abusing their kids for losing at chess tournaments and we turn our heads and say "its not my business" = we need to bring in standards that say it's not allowed. Although of course we can't control what happens at home.....

paulb
18-05-2006, 07:05 PM
Hi all

do we know the non-primary selections yet? the newsletter is waiting ...

paulb

jenni
18-05-2006, 08:06 PM
Hi all

do we know the non-primary selections yet? the newsletter is waiting ...

paulb

Good question Paul - Brett promised to put them up, but we are all still waiting - no doubt Laura's departure for the Olympiad, has caused an extra work load for Brett. I have to admit to a tinge of worry as time drags on and the by-law procedures are not followed......

MichaelBaron
18-05-2006, 11:04 PM
I dont have a problem with having an under 8 category in local comps where its just about fun and participation,but at a world level it is another matter.
They are not intended as "fun" competitions.

At an international level the standards are expected to be significantly higher...they are meant to represent the best in the world and as such that would help pushy parents by giving legitimacy to their grandiose plans for their kids.

so how about U6 championships? apparently they are on the way as well:hmm:

four four two
18-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Are you talking about Australia,Michael?:hmm:
Dont think we have an under 8 national category ....yet.:hmm:

brett
18-05-2006, 11:48 PM
Dear all,

Sorry about the delay.... i am pretty busy at the moment...

(all players have been given the OK by the selectors to participate as secondary applicants)

World U/20 Girls
Jessica Leanne Kinder
Sally Yu
Susan Sheng

World U/20 Boys
Nick Chernih
Denis Bourmistrov
Brayden Kent John Soo
Christopher Wallis
Derek Yu
Sanjesh Ranit Kumar
Zhigen Wilson Lin
Rukman Vijayakumar


World U/18
Gareth Oliver
James Obst
Derek Yu
Sanjesh Ranit Kumar
Zhigen Wilson Lin
Rukman Vijayakumar
Devrim van Dijk
James Edwin Cronan

World U/18 Girls
Jessica Leanne Kinder
Sally Yu
Susan Sheng

World Girls U/16
Tamzin Oliver
Deborah Ng
Sally Yu
Karishma Davina Kumar
Susan Sheng

World U/16 Boys
Justin Huang
Christopher Wallis
Derek Yu
Sanjesh Ranit Kumar
Zhigen Wilson Lin
Rukman Vijayakumar



World U/14 girls
Sally Yu
Karishma Davina Kumar

World U/14
Andrew Brown
Max Illingworth
Ben Harris
Edwin Wu
Derek Yu
Alan Glenton
Jason Tang

World U/12
Alexander Stahnke
Eugene Schon


World U/10
Oscar Wang
Alex Grossman
Joshua Lau
Cedric Koh


Girls U/10
Alannah Stephenson Byrne
Clarise Koh
Hannah Jordan Triscott

antichrist
19-05-2006, 07:28 AM
They didn't even make the "B" team.

jenni
19-05-2006, 08:55 AM
Wow - I am in a state of shock. As the architect of the multiple selections changes I am really upset to see it implemented, in my humble opinion, so badly.

The intent was not that every person who applied would automatically be endorsed for every age division and in fact some applicants would not be endorsed at all.

The idea was to bring Australia out of the dark ages and in line with other countries where now typically at least 3 children are selected to represent their country.

Australia would send over a team who would be worthy representatives in the age groups in which they were allowed to play.

We are now saying that an unrated person is now of the correct standard to play the world under 20. :wall: (sorry - he got a rating in the March list - 808)

I really think this has been handled very badly.

Rincewind
19-05-2006, 09:04 AM
Now you know how Utzon feels. I have to say I agree.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2006, 10:06 AM
Didn't see his name in either list. Did he not apply?

jenni
19-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Didn't see his name in either list. Did he not apply?
Moulthun did not apply - I think it is unlikely he will go overseas again and will be reducing his chess commitments to major adult events. (or so I was told when he didn't play the Young Masters). I think being in Queensland he is probably in year 10 already and heading for those difficult final years of school.

brett
19-05-2006, 05:11 PM
Wow - I am in a state of shock. As the architect of the multiple selections changes I am really upset to see it implemented, in my humble opinion, so badly.

The intent was not that every person who applied would automatically be endorsed for every age division and in fact some applicants would not be endorsed at all.

The idea was to bring Australia out of the dark ages and in line with other countries where now typically at least 3 children are selected to represent their country.

Australia would send over a team who would be worthy representatives in the age groups in which they were allowed to play.

We are now saying that an unrated person is now of the correct standard to play the world under 20. :wall: (sorry - he got a rating in the March list - 808)

I really think this has been handled very badly.


There were mixed feelings on this topic. One of the selectors thought there were a handful of children who were considered too weak for a division while the majority of the selectors were of the opinion that all children should be given an opportunity (if they choose to go)


Brett

jenni
19-05-2006, 05:35 PM
There were mixed feelings on this topic. One of the selectors thought there were a handful of children who were considered too weak for a division while the majority of the selectors were of the opinion that all children should be given an opportunity (if they choose to go)


Brett

This is insane - how on earth can a junior rated 800 be deemed strong enough to play in the World under 20. This is not the decision of the junior or the parent - ACF has a responsibility to only send Juniors who are strong enough.

We are potentially making ourselves the laughing stock of the chess world.

The fact that most of these juniors will be sensible enough to only play in their correct age group, does not mean they should have been endorsed as being allowed to play higher ones if they choose.

Garvinator
19-05-2006, 06:18 PM
This is insane - how on earth can a junior rated 800 be deemed strong enough to play in the World under 20. This is not the decision of the junior or the parent - ACF has a responsibility to only send Juniors who are strong enough.

We are potentially making ourselves the laughing stock of the chess world.

The fact that most of these juniors will be sensible enough to only play in their correct age group, does not mean they should have been endorsed as being allowed to play higher ones if they choose.
What was the original rational for having only one person selected in each age division?

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 06:43 PM
What was the original rational for having only one person selected in each age division?

What used to happen was we selected one person in each age division as our official rep (the one who gets their expenses covered by the host federation). Then everyone else who wanted to go had to apply for secondary selection to represent Aus without expenses, which was a very disorganised process.

Now this is streamlined by everyone who wants to go applying in the first place. The selectors then judge who is the primary selection (the one getting the expenses covered) and who is good enough to go as secondary selections.

All that has changed is

(i) the secondary selections have to get their act together earlier
(ii) the rejection of players who are too weak to be secondary selections is handled by the selectors rather than ad hoc.

Council's view was that while all the credible applicants should be approved as secondaries, every now and then you get a weak applicant who should be rejected even as a secondary because it is not in their interest to get massacred, so we wanted to give the selectors the ability to screen out such applicants. But if the selectors don't want to do that, then what can you do?

jenni
19-05-2006, 06:58 PM
What was the original rational for having only one person selected in each age division?

Up until 1998 you were only allowed to send 1 person in each division. i.e the maximum team was 10 and all of them got free accommodation and food. In 1998 this was changed to allow countries to send more than person in each division, but they had to pay for their food and accommodation and had to pay a higher entry fee.

Australia started calling this private entries, which was alwasy silly as no-one could enter unless they were endorsed by their national association.

The ACF persisted in picking only 10 and it became a bit of a free for all. Other countries choose their teams and choose all the kids who are going to go (and in many cases pay for the whole team).

The new by-law was an attempt to get a proper team picked by the ACF. While I think there should be a certain leeway given to allow our children to experience international competition, we are back to having a free for all.

jenni
19-05-2006, 07:03 PM
Council's view was that while all the credible applicants should be approved as secondaries, every now and then you get a weak applicant who should be rejected even as a secondary because it is not in their interest to get massacred, so we wanted to give the selectors the ability to screen out such applicants. But if the selectors don't want to do that, then what can you do?

Change the by-law to have more guidelines. e.g. that a secondary can only play in their age group, not a higher one. That a secondary selection has to be within x rating points of the primary selection for that age group. x can be very generous - say 400 points. this would immedaitely eliminate the current person I object to who is 1400 points less than the primary selection in the Under 20. (Poor boy - he probably has no intention of going to the under 20 and this is in no way aimed personally at him. It is excellent that he wants to take his chess to a new level and it is the selectors who are at fault, not him for applying).

jenni
19-05-2006, 07:32 PM
To give people an idea of how this is done in other countries -

Canada has a policy of allowing only the top 3 in each group at their Nationals to go. South Africa's is pretty similar.

USA allow the top rated kids in each age category to go - not sure how many between 3 and 5 I think.

I have always encouraged as many of our up and coming juniors as possible to go. However these are still the World Juniors and World Youth Championships - it is not intended as an open tournament for anyone who wants to go.

I think at the under 10, 12 even under 14, I would be pretty generous at letting almost anyone (within reason) go. At the higher age groups it needs to be much more tightly controlled - these juniors will be representing their country as much as our Olympiad team.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 09:18 PM
Change the by-law to have more guidelines. e.g. that a secondary can only play in their age group, not a higher one.

That seems like a good idea. I cannot see why a secondary in their own age group would or should be allowed to play in a higher group unless they are, or have become, the primary in that group.


That a secondary selection has to be within x rating points of the primary selection for that age group. x can be very generous - say 400 points.

This would eliminate credible applicants where the primary selection was unusually strong, and also some juniors could be that underrated. However as a similar idea to acheive the same concept, how about rating and performance floors for a player to apply for each division? (The idea of a performance floor is that a player who might be underrated could still apply if they had recent performances of a specified strength).

Rincewind
20-05-2006, 12:31 AM
There were mixed feelings on this topic. One of the selectors thought there were a handful of children who were considered too weak for a division while the majority of the selectors were of the opinion that all children should be given an opportunity (if they choose to go)

I agree with Jenni that this seems a pretty silly policy and one which could damage our reputation internationally. I also now wonder as to why late applicants were summarily rejected when it would more in line with the policy of secondary selecting everyone to accept late applications for secondary selection only. This seems especialy the case when the prospective applicant in question would have been second highest rated in their age group and rated more than 600 points higher than one of those who made secondary selection. :confused:

Alan Shore
20-05-2006, 12:47 AM
This is insane - how on earth can a junior rated 800 be deemed strong enough to play in the World under 20.

If people have that kind of cash to waste it should be criminal. Not to mention the total waste of time for the kid as well as their opponents.

However, the thing to note is, rules provisions allow for it. Why is there not a rating limit?


We are potentially making ourselves the laughing stock of the chess world.

Indeed.

Basil
20-05-2006, 12:51 AM
Are we lacking W/O/S people?

jenni
20-05-2006, 10:07 AM
This would eliminate credible applicants where the primary selection was unusually strong, and also some juniors could be that underrated. However as a similar idea to acheive the same concept, how about rating and performance floors for a player to apply for each division? (The idea of a performance floor is that a player who might be underrated could still apply if they had recent performances of a specified strength).
Yes I was thinking of this overnight. e.g. next year Angela Song will be the primary in the girls under 16 (if she goes). She is likely to be 2000+, which would immediately eliminate every other girl in Australia if we applied a 400 point difference.

I like your concept - I think this will need to go back to the ACF Junior sub-committee. I think in the middle of our debate last year, someone said what if the selectors just select everyone and I said that wouldn't happen as I trust our selectors to select a quality team. :wall:

Vlad
20-05-2006, 12:18 PM
Yes I was thinking of this overnight. e.g. next year Angela Song will be the primary in the girls under 16 (if she goes). She is likely to be 2000+, which would immediately eliminate every other girl in Australia if we applied a 400 point difference.


Yes, I agree with Kevin. It looks rather stipid that one juniour can't go to the championship because some other juniour is too good. It certainly makes sense to introduce absolute standards rather than relative ones. Say, if you are 2000+ you can qualify to the championship under 20 automatically (not as a primary selection though), otherwise you have to explain why you think that you are playing at that level. That could be your performance rating, for example.

Brian_Jones
20-05-2006, 12:35 PM
Are we lacking W/O/S people?

What does this mean Howard? How does it relate to the subject matter under discussion?

BTW jenni and kevin, who were the selectors and what were their terms of reference?

brett
20-05-2006, 12:36 PM
With the low rated player putting his name down for much higher divisions I have a feeling he didnt really understand the selection system.

In a way it is hard to say who is strong enough to play and who isnt just taking rating into account. I think the selectors didnt want children to miss out on this experience..if they are keen and want to give it a shot then

Jenni when your children starting going to the world junior events didnt they go as secondary selections? Didnt tamzin have a very low rating?
(wasnt she - rating at the time?)
Each year they went they improved alot from experiences drawn from the event and improved out of sight.

It is good for parents and students to see what it is like to play in a world arena. It allows them see first hand what is required to be at the top and helps them to set realistic goals/targets etc.


I do agree that if someone wishes to go as a secondary entrant they should probably just stick to their division and not play up. But as mentioned above I have a feeling that the applicant didnt really understand the selection system and put his name forward in the wrong divisions.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2006, 12:39 PM
I think the point about damage to our reputation is rather overstated, since where players have been selected as secondaries in divisions above their own, they are extremely unlikely to actually play in those divisions. However there is no reason I can see to select such players as secondaries in higher divisions anyway.

brett
20-05-2006, 12:45 PM
Maybe there could be a limit of applicants who can represent in each age division for each division..


U/18, U/16, U/14, 3 participants in each division (maximum)

U/12, U/10 divisions maybe we can take up to 5 participants (maximum)

jenni
20-05-2006, 12:46 PM
What does this mean Howard? How does it relate to the subject matter under discussion?



I wondered this myself, but didn't want to ask in case it was some term that everyone understands except me. :D




BTW jenni and kevin, who were the selectors and what were their terms of reference?

I think the critical part is this part of the selection by-law. I have bolded the most relevant bit.

5A Application and Selection for Certain Junior Events

5A.1 This clause applies to applications for selection for FIDE junior events such as the
World Youth Championships that permit more than one person to be endorsed by their
national federation to enter that event (“a FIDE junior event”).

5A.2 A person will not be endorsed by the ACF to enter a FIDE junior event unless that
person has applied for selection under this By-law.

5A.3 Before voting under clause 7 on applications for selection for a FIDE junior event
the selectors are to determine, in respect of each applicant for selection, if that applicant
is strong enough to play in the event.
5A.4 Each selector is to make that determination within a time fixed by the Selection Co-
ordinator when the information is provided to the selectors under clause 6.

5A.5 The Selection Co-ordinator is immediately to inform an applicant, who is
determined by a majority of the selectors not to be strong enough to play in the event, of
that determination.

5A.6 A determination under clause 5A.3 and 5A.4 is not subject to appeal under clause 9.

5A.7 The remaining applicants for selection are to be ranked in accordance with clause 7.

5A.8 The applicant ranked first is to be endorsed by the ACF as its official selection
entitled to receive free accommodation and other benefits provided by the host federation
under the FIDE rules applying to the event.

5A.9 Each other ranked applicant is entitled to endorsement by the ACF as an official
selection to enter the event at his or her own expense."

Initially the selectors were not asked to do anything as per 5a.3. When I found this out, I asked Brett to fix this up and I understand that he did contact the selectors and asked them to rule. See his comment as above.

The selectors in my opinion are a very competent bunch, which is why I am in a state of shock.

Am I allowed to say who the selectors are? I do know who they all are (in my usual busy body fashion I have found out), but I am not sure If this is confiential or not!

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Didnt tamzin have a very low rating? (wasnt she - rating at the time?)

You cant have a negative rating!!!!

brett
20-05-2006, 12:52 PM
I bought up the same points as Jenni to the selectors about some of the players not being up to the strength of the divisons they had applied for ...one selector did send me a list of applicants who he felt were not strong enough..but the other selectors were of the opinion that they should be able to go if they wish to.

jenni
20-05-2006, 12:53 PM
Jenni when your children starting going to the world junior events didnt they go as secondary selections? Didnt tamzin have a very low rating?
(wasnt she - rating at the time?)
Each year they went they improved alot from experiences drawn from the event and improved out of sight.



yes she did - but she was in the under 10 division. That is why I feel that for the under 10, 12 and possibly even the under 14 division we can be very generous in who goes. I have no problem at all in just about anyone being selected in those division and have stated it earlier in this debate.

It is also why I have pushed for the multiple selections to in fact encourage more children to go, so they can improve and be enthused by the international experience. However it was never intended that just anyone could go in any division, particularly higher ones where there is almost no tail and the standard is much higher.





I do agree that if someone wishes to go as a secondary entrant they should probably just stick to their division and not play up. But as mentioned above I have a feeling that the applicant didnt really understand the selection system and put his name forward in the wrong divisions.

Absolutely agree - once again as I said earlier on, all credit to him to want to take his chess to a higher level. The problem is with the selection process, which has selected him as being strong enough to play the under 20, not with his application

brett
20-05-2006, 12:53 PM
You cant have a negative rating!!!!

Yes you can :)

jenni
20-05-2006, 12:53 PM
You cant have a negative rating!!!!

You used to be able to. :)

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2006, 12:54 PM
Brian, I can't tell you who the selectors are because I don't know. Unlike the last World Junior when I was briefly filling in as JSC, I wasn't involved in this one.

jenni
20-05-2006, 12:57 PM
I bought up the same points as Jenni to the selectors about some of the players not being up to the strength of the divisons they had applied for ...one selector did send me a list of applicants who he felt were not strong enough..but the other selectors were of the opinion that they should be able to go if they wish to.
And this is just plain wrong. I am sorry I have great respect for all the selectors involved, but at the end of the day the ACF has to set the policy frame work for this sort of thing and obviously they (and I as a member of the ACF junior sub-committee) have allowed a frame work where an 800 rated person can be selected for the world under 20 - this needs to be corrected.


By the way Brett seeing you are talking here and I can't seem to get you to reply to my e-mails - can you let me know when you intend completing the selection process?

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 12:59 PM
You used to be able to. :)

okay wow thats strange.

can you tell us what other secondarys you thought shouldnt have been allowed to play, besides the one bloke you keep singling out?

one of them actually plays at my club.

brett
20-05-2006, 01:01 PM
yes she did - but she was in the under 10 division. That is why I feel that for the under 10, 12 and possibly even the under 14 division we can be very generous in who goes. I have no problem at all in just about anyone being selected in those division and have stated it earlier in this debate.

It is also why I have pushed for the multiple selections to in fact encourage more children to go, so they can improve and be enthused by the international experience. However it was never intended that just anyone could go in any division, particularly higher ones where there is almost no tail and the standard is much higher.




Absolutely agree - once again as I said earlier on, all credit to him to want to take his chess to a higher level. The problem is with the selection process, which has selected him as being strong enough to play the under 20, not with his application



Yes I agree that the ratings arent too important in the lower age groups but I think when you get up to the higher divisions it does make a difference.

Maybe I should contact the selectors again and discuss this.
The right solution could be that he is elligable to play in his true age group (U/14) and nothing higher than that.

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:01 PM
Maybe there could be a limit of applicants who can represent in each age division for each division..


U/18, U/16, U/14, 3 participants in each division (maximum)

U/12, U/10 divisions maybe we can take up to 5 participants (maximum)
We discussed this in the ACF junior sub-committee and were against the principle. There have been some years when an extremly strong field wished to play in an age division and in other years when you have a weak field.

e.g. say you had only 2 people apply for the under 18 and the second person has a rating of 800. They will meet the number limit, but still shouldn't be allowed to play.

I think setting rational (but on the generous side) rating/performance floors is a better way to attack the issue.

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:08 PM
Yes I agree that the ratings arent too important in the lower age groups but I think when you get up to the higher divisions it does make a difference.


Absolutely agree - I think at the younger age group we should be encouraging any reasonable and enthusiastic player to go over.

I have seen so many juniors go over there and come back wanting to improve - they are submerged in a rich chess culture. 1000 kids of all ages loving chess and so many strong adult coaches. I can't remember who it was, one of the kids who just wandered around one year in raptures about al the "names" he was seeing!



Maybe I should contact the selectors again and discuss this.
The right solution could be that he is elligable to play in his true age group (U/14) and nothing higher than that.

Given half the selectors are ready to start their own tournament, maybe we shoudln't worry them! (although I have to admit I sent off an e-mail to them yesterday. )

I think with heavy discouragement no Junior is going to play up a division and maybe we need to just learn from this for next year and fix the by-law so that it has some safe guards in it.

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:16 PM
okay wow thats strange.

can you tell us what other secondarys you thought shouldnt have been allowed to play, besides the one bloke you keep singling out?

one of them actually plays at my club.

I know I feel mean every time I single him out. However it is the principle that has gone wrong, not the fact that he applied. I think it is fantastic to see any junior wanting to push themselves and go further with their chess.

I don't think I would necessarily have eliminated any other person, although I would have restricted the age division they can play in. I do not believe that we have any secondary selection who needs to play in a higher divison. Many of them nominated themselves in every age division "just in case" . e.g last year Bec Harris didn't nominate herself for the under 18 girls and thus Vaness who did got the selection. This caused a rather large amount of angst last year and I think people have played safe and just applied for everything they could.

However do we really want it that the last person left standing gets the primary selection, or do we want a certain standard applied?

As it stands at the moment, if we have a huge drop out in the under 18, then our enthusiastic 800 point player is going to be the primary selection for the under 18....

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:21 PM
okay wow thats strange.

.

It was bizarre and was fixed some years ago. There was also the potential to go very negative in your internally kept rating. Bill once gave me an example of an ACT kid, who had started off and acquired a -1000 rating. This was not displayed (that was corrected many years ago). However the person kept playing and got heaps better, but had to overcome this -1000 points before he got some pathetic little rating. I understand that now the very -ve ratings are not kept and it just keeps recalculating the rating until someone finally plays well enough to get a rational first rating.

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 01:24 PM
As it stands at the moment, if we have a huge drop out in the under 18, then our enthusiastic 800 point player is going to be the primary selection for the under 18....

well it would be sad if everyone else dropped out, but if they did i dont see why mr 800 shouldnt play. as i understand it fide has to pay for the primary selections accommodation and food and travel costs. it would be better if that goes to even a weak player than back in kirsans pocket. i dont see how it costs the acf anything.

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 01:29 PM
Yes I was thinking of this overnight. e.g. next year Angela Song will be the primary in the girls under 16 (if she goes). She is likely to be 2000+, which would immediately eliminate every other girl in Australia if we applied a 400 point difference.

I like your concept - I think this will need to go back to the ACF Junior sub-committee. I think in the middle of our debate last year, someone said what if the selectors just select everyone and I said that wouldn't happen as I trust our selectors to select a quality team. :wall:

okay, imagine that there's a a single parent family with one son rated 2000 and another rated 1300. the 2000 son gets selected for the world under 16 and because theres only one parent the whole family has to go overseas with him. why should the 1300 son have to sit around in the hotel doing nothing? i doubt that someone rated 1300 would finish last in the world under 16, although they obviously would finish on a low score. how is australian chess served by making him wait around in the hotel instead of playing?

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:31 PM
well it would be sad if everyone else dropped out, but if they did i dont see why mr 800 shouldnt play. as i understand it fide has to pay for the primary selections accommodation and food and travel costs. it would be better if that goes to even a weak player than back in kirsans pocket. i dont see how it costs the acf anything.
It doesn't cost the ACF anything. However we have some responsibility in this. (and no FIDE does not pay any travel costs - food and accommodation are provided by the host country, not FIDE and travel costs are up to the player)

- when the ACF lets someone enter they are saying to the other countries that this person is of the right standard to play Mr 800 would not be allowed to play the Premier section of Doeberl or the Australian Championships, arguably weaker tournaments than the under 18.

- also how is the poor boy going to feel if he loses 8 games in a row, while all his team mates are getting the odd win and draw.

- we have to have certain standards otherwise we make a joke of ourselves and our sport.

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:42 PM
okay, imagine that there's a a single parent family with one son rated 2000 and another rated 1300. the 2000 son gets selected for the world under 16 and because theres only one parent the whole family has to go overseas with him. why should the 1300 son have to sit around in the hotel doing nothing? i doubt that someone rated 1300 would finish last in the world under 16, although they obviously would finish on a low score. how is australian chess served by making him wait around in the hotel instead of playing?

So if Ian Thorpe's little brother goes along to watch the World swimming meet, he should get to swim as well?

I would think a 1300 point player would come damn near last in the under 16 - probably beat the Kenyan. Kids like Chris Wallis, Ronald Yu, Gareth, Vincent Suttor with ratings of 1900+ have struggled to get more than 4.5 points out of 11 in the under 16 in recent years. Sam Chow with his 2100+ rating made 5 points in 2003. You have no idea of the strength of the U16 to under 20.

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 01:48 PM
I would think a 1300 point player would come damn near last in the under 16 - probably beat the Kenyan.

i agree that hed probably finish on about 2, maybe get the bye and beat the kenyan or fluke one other game. im just not seeing how this is a bad thing for australian chess. the kid would get to learn something, and hed have a lot more fun than just sitting around all day waiting for his brothers game to finish. if youre going to impinge on someone elses freedom to enter a tournament then you should have a good reason for it. can you show me how australian chess is damaged by this?

jenni
20-05-2006, 01:56 PM
i agree that hed probably finish on about 2, maybe get the bye and beat the kenyan or fluke one other game. im just not seeing how this is a bad thing for australian chess. the kid would get to learn something, and hed have a lot more fun than just sitting around all day waiting for his brothers game to finish. if youre going to impinge on someone elses freedom to enter a tournament then you should have a good reason for it. can you show me how australian chess is damaged by this?
Because it is not an Open - he does not have the "freedom" to enter it.

- I am the least elitist person in the world and have always encouraged extra kids to go and compete overseas.

However it is stil the World youth and we have to apply certain standards.

How is Australian chess hurt by having Shannon enter the Australian Championships? She would love to play it and is ultra enthusiastic about chess. However there would be howls of protest from one end of Australia to the other if she was let in. This is no different.

The other juniors from other countries have also worked hard to represent thier countries (and other countries have pretty tough selection methods). They have paid a lot of money to travel to the tournament. The 11 juniors this mythical 1300 point person is going to play have a right to expect a game in keeping with the standard of the world under 16.

LittleBear
20-05-2006, 02:12 PM
he does not have the "freedom" to enter it.

up until last year he did. it seems to me that youre trying to take away this freedom, but without much success.


How is Australian chess hurt by having Shannon enter the Australian Championships? She would love to play it and is ultra enthusiastic about chess. However there would be howls of protest from one end of Australia to the other if she was let in. This is no different.

id imagine a lot of the best players in australia would refuse to play if anyone shannon's rating or above was let in. then you'd have an australian championship missing most of the best players, which is obviously a bad thing.

on the other hand, no australians would withdraw from the team because my hypothetical 1300 was let in. the team might even get another player. maybe the parent will only pay the expense for the 2000 brother to attend if she feels that both children are getting value from the trip.

jenni
20-05-2006, 02:21 PM
up until last year he did. it seems to me that youre trying to take away this freedom, but without much success.

No he didn't - no-one has ever been able to enter the world youth without being endorsed by the national association. Up until last year it pretty much rested with me, as team manager. If I thought someone wasn't strong enough I would discourage them or tell the ACF not to endorse them. This was plainly not how it should be done, so I moved the responsibility from the team manager to the ACF.




id imagine a lot of the best players in australia would refuse to play if anyone shannon's rating or above was let in. then you'd have an australian championship missing most of the best players, which is obviously a bad thing.


And why would they withdraw? Because they didn't want to waste their time playing someone of Shannon's level of play. We have a moral responsibility not to do to players from other countries what we are not prepared to do to the players in the Australian Championships.

Garvinator
20-05-2006, 02:27 PM
The other juniors from other countries have also worked hard to represent thier countries (and other countries have pretty tough selection methods).
wow, have been reading this from the start and I am happy to see Jenni on the more elite side of the argument for once :clap: :clap:

Anyways, the part I have quoted I think is the most relevant part. Clearly by having strict qualifying criteria, the other countries are saying that they as a majority, want the tournament to be run under 'elite criteria' with only the best players participating.

To pick players that are way out of their class at the tournament and not even the best of the crop that we have to choose from, is just wrong :uhoh:

Of course, if we had only one player to choose from in an age category and that meant that that player would be the bottom seed, then it is ok to choose that player as it is the best we have to offer.

jenni
20-05-2006, 04:16 PM
wow, have been reading this from the start and I am happy to see Jenni on the more elite side of the argument for once :clap: :clap:

I think it is a balance thing. As I have said a number of times I am not elitist and I really do want to see a team of between 20 and 30 kids going each year. However there still has to be a certain standard maintained.



Anyways, the part I have quoted I think is the most relevant part. Clearly by having strict qualifying criteria, the other countries are saying that they as a majority, want the tournament to be run under 'elite criteria' with only the best players participating.

other countries do have tougher criteria than us, but they still allow more than one to compete in each age group. I think we need to find this balance where we are not ultra elitist, but still apply standards.


Of course, if we had only one player to choose from in an age category and that meant that that player would be the bottom seed, then it is ok to choose that player as it is the best we have to offer.
This tends not to happen except in the girls - unfortunately says a lot about the state of female chess in Australia....

Garvinator
20-05-2006, 04:28 PM
I think it is a balance thing. As I have said a number of times I am not elitist and I really do want to see a team of between 20 and 30 kids going each year. However there still has to be a certain standard maintained.
If they are all good players and will do 'well', then I dont have a problem with sending 30 players.


other countries do have tougher criteria than us, but they still allow more than one to compete in each age group. I think we need to find this balance where we are not ultra elitist, but still apply standards.
General reply above.

four four two
20-05-2006, 06:38 PM
It is good for parents and students to see what it is like to play in a world arena. It allows them see first hand what is required to be at the top and helps them to set realistic goals/targets etc.

While it is true they will see what is required to become a strong chessplayer,lets not forget they can easily learn that lesson at home in Australia...where its not going to cost them $4,000+ in expenses.

There are quite a few players of international standard[2250+FIDE] playing in the big weekenders in Australia. What you have to remember with most of the competitors playing in these international junior tournaments is that they are not travelling half way around the world to play in them. Most of them are travelling less than 1000 kms. Their costs of competing are substantially lower than ours.

Personally speaking I dont think any junior under 1700 strength,regardless of age or gender, should be encouraged to go overseas to play these junior tournaments. They would be much better off hiring a strong coach and playing the big weekenders in Australia,this would definitely give them more experience than playing one international junior tournament.

jenni
20-05-2006, 10:19 PM
While it is true they will see what is required to become a strong chessplayer,lets not forget they can easily learn that lesson at home in Australia...where its not going to cost them $4,000+ in expenses.

There are quite a few players of international standard[2250+FIDE] playing in the big weekenders in Australia. What you have to remember with most of the competitors playing in these international junior tournaments is that they are not travelling half way around the world to play in them. Most of them are travelling less than 1000 kms. Their costs of competing are substantially lower than ours.

Personally speaking I dont think any junior under 1700 strength,regardless of age or gender, should be encouraged to go overseas to play these junior tournaments. They would be much better off hiring a strong coach and playing the big weekenders in Australia,this would definitely give them more experience than playing one international junior tournament.

As you say, it is not hard to give a junior under 1700 strong playing experience in a weekender.

What you can't duplicate at a weekender is the atmosphere at one of these things - a thousand juniors all loving and immersed in chess. It can set a kid on fire and make them come back really wanting to learn and work. They see chess from a totally different perspective.

MichaelBaron
20-05-2006, 11:42 PM
While it is true they will see what is required to become a strong chessplayer,lets not forget they can easily learn that lesson at home in Australia...where its not going to cost them $4,000+ in expenses.

There are quite a few players of international standard[2250+FIDE] playing in the big weekenders in Australia. What you have to remember with most of the competitors playing in these international junior tournaments is that they are not travelling half way around the world to play in them. Most of them are travelling less than 1000 kms. Their costs of competing are substantially lower than ours.

Personally speaking I dont think any junior under 1700 strength,regardless of age or gender, should be encouraged to go overseas to play these junior tournaments. They would be much better off hiring a strong coach and playing the big weekenders in Australia,this would definitely give them more experience than playing one international junior tournament.

If some strong junior wants to play a training match against me I will be happy to help out....and it will not cost his parents $4000 for sure :).

Garvinator
21-05-2006, 01:16 AM
If some strong junior wants to play a training match against me I will be happy to help out....and it will not cost his parents $4000 for sure :).
Stephen Solomon did this with Moulthun Ly and won the match by a wide margin, 7.5 to 0.5. Since then Moulthun has really improved and I believe has a plus score vs Solo over the last few games.

MichaelBaron
21-05-2006, 09:24 AM
Stephen Solomon did this with Moulthun Ly and won the match by a wide margin, 7.5 to 0.5. Since then Moulthun has really improved and I believe has a plus score vs Solo over the last few games.

If Juniors get a plus score over me, I will only be happy.

four four two
21-05-2006, 10:22 AM
As you say, it is not hard to give a junior under 1700 strong playing experience in a weekender.

What you can't duplicate at a weekender is the atmosphere at one of these things - a thousand juniors all loving and immersed in chess. It can set a kid on fire and make them come back really wanting to learn and work. They see chess from a totally different perspective.

I wouldnt dispute the fact that you cant recreate the atmosphere of playing in a tournament of 1000 kids by playing in a big weekender in Australia,but is that worth $4000?:hmm:

If local juniors cant get excited about chess after playing in a tournament like Doeberl,Victorian open,or NSW open then I would have to say they are a bit jaded. I have seen plenty of adult players with a lot of tournament experience get pumped up about chess after having a good result at some of australia's big chess tournaments.

jenni
21-05-2006, 05:18 PM
I wouldnt dispute the fact that you cant recreate the atmosphere of playing in a tournament of 1000 kids by playing in a big weekender in Australia,but is that worth $4000?:hmm:

If local juniors cant get excited about chess after playing in a tournament like Doeberl,Victorian open,or NSW open then I would have to say they are a bit jaded. I have seen plenty of adult players with a lot of tournament experience get pumped up about chess after having a good result at some of australia's big chess tournaments.

I don't think it is a matter of being jaded - just more of a kids experience. Take Shannon (gosh she must hate me using her, but at least no-one can saying I am picking on some other kid). She played her first Aus Open at mt Buller - I agree a bad one to pick. She had a pretty miserable lonely time and came back not too keen to play another one. Overseas she has met juniors from all over the world, e.g a girl who is in Turin playing for Wales, who is very disappointed that Shannon isn't on the Olympiad team. Over the years Shannon has made these connections, keeps in touch with these kids (wonders of MSN) and plans to travel to Europe to meet up with them again and play comps overseas. I think half the reason she has kept playing chess is because of the overseas experiences. I hate to say it but for 15 and 16 year olds it is not just about the game, it is the whole experience and playing chess with a bunch of wrinklies at Doeberl (albeit some of them good chess players) is just not the same as meeting up with a bunch of chess crazy kids of your own age.

Rincewind
22-05-2006, 12:05 AM
I also now wonder as to why late applicants were summarily rejected when it would more in line with the policy of secondary selecting everyone to accept late applications for secondary selection only.

Still wondering about this. Brett?

antichrist
24-05-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by Rincewind
I also now wonder as to why late applicants were summarily rejected when it would more in line with the policy of secondary selecting everyone to accept late applications for secondary selection only.

Surely this wins the gobblegork prize.

Well late applicants were summarily rejected just as my late application would have been rejected for that Easter Brissie comp - and am I whinging about it - NO!

And Good Guy Garvin Gray went to the trouble of putting in hyper-font bold the closing date of their next comp - very considerate of him, he doesn't want me to miss out again.

Denis_Jessop
01-06-2006, 10:56 AM
Brett Tindall asked me to publish the full list of selections after double-checking by me at his request. The list, also published in today's ACF Newsletter, is as follows. The major change is in the primary selection for the u 18 boys. On behalf of the ACF I apologise to the players concerned for the mistake.

World Youth u16 Chess Olympiad
Agri, Turkey. 5-13 August 2006

1.Christopher Wallis
2.Zhigen Wilson Lin
3.Rukman Vijayakumar
4.Ben Harris
5.Derek Yu
6.Jessica Kinder
7.Deborah Ng
8.Susan Sheng
9.Sanesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championship (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 2 - 17 October 2006

1.Tomek Rej
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Denis Bourmistrov
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Rukman Vijayakumar
6.Nick Chernih
7.Douglas Lindberg
8.Brayden Kent John Soo
9.Derek Yu
10.Sanjesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championship Girls (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 12 – 17 October 2006

1.Shannon Oliver
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng


World Youth Championships
Batumi, Georgia 20 – 31 October 2006

Under 18 Boys
1.Gareth Oliver
2.Christopher Wallis
3.James Cronan
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Devrim van Dijk
8.Derek Yu
9.Sanesh Rajit Kumar

Under 18 Girls
1.Alex Jule
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng

Under 16 Boys
1.James Obst
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Justin Huang
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Derek Yu
8.Sanesh Ranjit Kumar

Under 16 Girls
1.Jessica Kinder
2.Deborah Ng
3.Sally Yu
4.Tamzin Oliver
5.Susan Sheng
6.Karishma Davina Kumar

Under 14 Boys
1.Zhigen Wilson Lin
2.Max Illingworth
3.Andrew Brown
4.Ben Harris
5.Edwin Wu
6.Derek Yu
7.Jason Tang
8.Alan Glenton

Under 14 Girls
1.Angela Song
2.Sally Yu
3.Karishma Davina Kumar

Under 12 Boys
1.Raymond Song
2.Eugene Schon
3.Alexander Stahnke

Under 12 Girls
1.Sally Yu

Under 10 Boys
1.Laurence Matheson
2.Joshua Lau
3.Oscar Wang
4.Alex Grossman
5.Cedric Koh

Under 10 Girls
1.Megan Setiabudi
2.Clarise Koh
3.Hannah Jordan Triscott
4.Alannah Stevenson Byrne


Notes
The number 1 selection in each category qualifies for the free food and accommodation that is provided by the host country under FIDE requirements. In the case of the Under 16 Olympiad Team, this benefit applies to the selections numbered 1 to 4 inclusive as the team comprises 4 players.

In the Under 18 Boys, James Obst was the number 1 selection but has opted to play in the Under 16 category in which he was also selected number 1.

The remaining players are listed in order of selection. They are all selected in that the ACF will endorse their entry but they will have to pay their own way if they choose to attend. The ranking order is shown because it is relevant for players in deciding whether to exercise their right of appeal.

The selectors were GM Ian Rogers, GM Darryl Johansen, IM Gary lane, IM Zhao Zong-Yuan and Geoff Saw.

I mention that the ACF Selection Procedures By-law provides for applicants for selection to be excluded if they are considered to be not strong enough. No applicant was excluded for that reason on this occasion.

Denis Jessop
ACF President
for the Selection Co-ordinator (Brett Tindall)

jenni
01-06-2006, 04:58 PM
Brett Tindall asked me to publish the full list of selections after double-checking by me at his request. The list, also published in today's ACF Newsletter, is as follows. The major change is in the primary selection for the u 18 boys. On behalf of the ACF I apologise to the players concerned for the mistake.


All credit to Brett for finding and pointing out the mistake and not trying to sweep it under the carpet. Gareth is OK about it and I understand Chris is as well. Unless the dates change it is unlikely that Gareth will be able to accept his primary selection (clash with Uni exams), so Chris will get it anyway.

brett
05-06-2006, 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rincewind
I also now wonder as to why late applicants were summarily rejected when it would more in line with the policy of secondary selecting everyone to accept late applications for secondary selection only.

Still wondering about this. Brett?

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

Just following the rules.

Rincewind
05-06-2006, 11:40 AM
Just following the rules.

Rules serve a purpose. What purpose was the deadline when all applicants were granted secondary selection anyway?

jenni
05-06-2006, 03:55 PM
Rules serve a purpose. What purpose was the deadline when all applicants were granted secondary selection anyway?
This is not the fault of the rules or the selection co-ordinator. The by-laws will be changed for next year so that a certain standard will be enforced by the ACF.

Rincewind
05-06-2006, 05:07 PM
This is not the fault of the rules or the selection co-ordinator. The by-laws will be changed for next year so that a certain standard will be enforced by the ACF.

Actually I believe the selection coordinator could have done more but I concede that is a matter of opinion and probably doesn't warrant further discussion. However, your second sentence is certainly a better response than the Nuremberg defense so my sincere thanks for that.

Garvinator
19-06-2006, 11:43 PM
Fide has more information on these tournaments on their website:

http://www.fide.com/default.asp?curpage=1&x=0.4966852

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 01:19 AM
World Youth u16 Chess Olympiad
Agri, Turkey. 5-13 August 2006

1.Christopher Wallis
2.Zhigen Wilson Lin
3.Rukman Vijayakumar
4.Ben Harris
5.Derek Yu
6.Jessica Kinder
7.Deborah Ng
8.Susan Sheng
9.Sanesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championship (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 2 - 17 October 2006

1.Tomek Rej
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Denis Bourmistrov
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Rukman Vijayakumar
6.Nick Chernih
7.Douglas Lindberg
8.Brayden Kent John Soo
9.Derek Yu
10.Sanjesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championship Girls (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 12 – 17 October 2006

1.Shannon Oliver
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng


World Youth Championships
Batumi, Georgia 20 – 31 October 2006

Under 18 Boys
1.Gareth Oliver
2.Christopher Wallis
3.James Cronan
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Devrim van Dijk
8.Derek Yu
9.Sanesh Rajit Kumar

Under 18 Girls
1.Alex Jule
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng

Under 16 Boys
1.James Obst
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Justin Huang
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Derek Yu
8.Sanesh Ranjit Kumar

Under 16 Girls
1.Jessica Kinder
2.Deborah Ng
3.Sally Yu
4.Tamzin Oliver
5.Susan Sheng
6.Karishma Davina Kumar

Under 14 Boys
1.Zhigen Wilson Lin
2.Max Illingworth
3.Andrew Brown
4.Ben Harris
5.Edwin Wu
6.Derek Yu
7.Jason Tang
8.Alan Glenton

Under 14 Girls
1.Angela Song
2.Sally Yu
3.Karishma Davina Kumar

Under 12 Boys
1.Raymond Song
2.Eugene Schon
3.Alexander Stahnke

Under 12 Girls
1.Sally Yu

Under 10 Boys
1.Laurence Matheson
2.Joshua Lau
3.Oscar Wang
4.Alex Grossman
5.Cedric Koh

Under 10 Girls
1.Megan Setiabudi
2.Clarise Koh
3.Hannah Jordan Triscott
4.Alannah Stevenson Byrne

Any news on the definite opt in out out for these selections? I note with sadness that a few number 1 selections will be relocating to Shanghai for 2 years. Not sure if this affects their desire or ability to participate in representative chess for the ACF.

From Denis' post it seems the ACF must provide food and accomodation for the primary selections. Should the primary selection not be able to make it, I assume the secondary selection will be promoted to primary with these same benefits.

Bill Gletsos
25-06-2006, 01:58 AM
I note with sadness that a few number 1 selections will be relocating to Shanghai for 2 years. Not sure if this affects their desire or ability to participate in representative chess for the ACF.At this stage my understanding is that they will be playing in the events representing Australia.

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 02:16 AM
At this stage my understanding is that they will be playing in the events representing Australia.

Good news. Thanks.

antichrist
25-06-2006, 07:38 PM
At this stage my understanding is that they will be playing in the events representing Australia.

Not taking anything away from them, but according to George Xie it is much easier to do so from Aussie than from over there, due to so much competition. Meaning they may get into more comps if represtenting Aussie.

Denis_Jessop
25-06-2006, 09:24 PM
Any news on the definite opt in out out for these selections? I note with sadness that a few number 1 selections will be relocating to Shanghai for 2 years. Not sure if this affects their desire or ability to participate in representative chess for the ACF.

From Denis' post it seems the ACF must provide food and accomodation for the primary selections. Should the primary selection not be able to make it, I assume the secondary selection will be promoted to primary with these same benefits.

I am still awaiting responses from most of the selected players so it is too early to say just who is actually going.

Regarding free food and accommodation, FIDE regulations require this to be provided by the host country to one player (logically the no.1 selection) of each competing federation so that it is the host country (Georgia in the case of the World Youth Championships) that provides it. Also, in this case the rule applies in respect of each age group.

DJ

Rincewind
25-06-2006, 09:28 PM
Regarding free food and accommodation, FIDE regulations require this to be provided by the host country to one player (logically the no.1 selection) of each competing federation so that it is the host country (Georgia in the case of the World Youth Championships) that provides it. Also, in this case the rule applies in respect of each age group.

Thanks for the clarification and sorry about my muddled reading the first time around.

Mischa
05-07-2006, 10:41 PM
So who is going?
Given James was too late...so not allowed to apply....I was interested to know, who is representing Australia?

Brian_Jones
06-07-2006, 08:08 AM
So who is going?

Good question.

Turkey is very soon (August) and should be no problem.

But who has confirmed to go to Armenia later in the year?

If there are drop-outs we should fill the places asap.

Mischa
07-07-2006, 09:19 PM
Is there an answer?

Would really like to know?

Mischa
09-07-2006, 09:25 PM
Hello?

Mischa
20-07-2006, 12:49 PM
Doesn't ANYONE know?????

Mischa
20-07-2006, 07:01 PM
bump

Rincewind
21-07-2006, 07:18 AM
From the ACF Newsletter...

4. Dusan Stojic and Cedric Koh were selected as the Under 18 and Under 8 Australian representatives respectively for the World Youth Championships.

Also...

The 2006 World Youth Chess Tournament, endorsed by FIDE, is being held from 18th to 29th Oct, 2006 in Batumi, Georgia. The World Youth Australian Chess Team would very much appreciate all financial support from the wider Chess community that will be helping to invest in the future of Junior Chess. The categories for the event are U18, U16, U14, U12, U10, U8 for both boys & girls. To date, there are 18 players who have committed to go. However, the costs to represent Australia at such an event incurs enormous costs (e.g. airfares, coaching, uniforms etc...), and many good players are unable to go.

Unlike Australia, various countries such as USA, China, Vietnam, India will be sending a large contingent as they have funding. We therefore urgently seek your support as the sport of chess is not supported by any Government funding.

All donors will be published on the ACF newsletter. In addition, they will also receive a daily bulletin email on the progress of the Australian Junior Chess Team during the event.

All donations are gladly welcome (even anonymous) and cheques can be made payable to the Australian Chess Federation and posted to Eunice Koh to:-

World Youth Chess Tournament
C/- E Koh
PO Box 262
Penshurst NSW 2222

Thanks very much on behalf of the Team.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 08:41 PM
I see that the world Youth under 16 Oz players include Zhigen (excellent choice)
Rukman...Ben harris...Derek Yu...
ummm
what was the selection criteria here?
James not allowed to apply but higher rated than two of them?

Mischa
27-07-2006, 08:42 PM
And this is nice...they are asking for new applicants for the under 18 for Georgia...
Who are the 18 kids who are going???

Mischa
27-07-2006, 08:42 PM
And james was not allowed to apply

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 08:54 PM
Maybe James should apply for the U18 spot? Given the way everybody originally or as last resort selected for it has piked, he might get it unopposed!

Mischa
27-07-2006, 08:55 PM
But he was told it is too late to apply...remember?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:00 PM
But he was told it is too late to apply...remember?

Not too late for the reopened U18 selection - any player contacting Denis within 7 days of the release of the current Newsletter and supplying the info required by the By-Laws is in the running.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:01 PM
hang on...he was not allowed to apply because it was too late...
Now it is not too late?
who is playing in the ulnder 12's????

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:04 PM
Selections have been re-opened for the U18 division only.

The reason for that was all the originally selected players declined and then Dusan Stojic, who was then offered the place after submitting a late application for the U18 once all the on-time ones were exhausted, also declined.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:05 PM
So who is playing for the under 12's???

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:07 PM
SO DUSAN WAS ALLOWED A LATE APPLICATION????
why him and not James?

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 09:11 PM
The reason for that was all the originally selected players declined and then Dusan Stojic, who was then offered the place after submitting a late application for the U18 once all the on-time ones were exhausted, also declined.

So how did that work Kevin? Do you know the date of Dusan's application?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:19 PM
SO DUSAN WAS ALLOWED A LATE APPLICATION????
why him and not James?

No, Dusan's late application was rejected and furthermore the ACF refused to even hear his appeal against the rejection of it. That meant that had any of the selected players (one of whom had a very low rating) wanted to go, Dusan could not have been offered a place.

However every single one of the selected U18 players declined a place. At this point the place was offered to Dusan because he had made an application, albeit one way too late to be accepted.

Same thing didn't apply to James' case because at least one player who applied in time wanted to go.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:21 PM
and who is that?

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:22 PM
tell me it is not an act kid..........

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 09:26 PM
No, Dusan's late application was rejected and furthermore the ACF refused to even hear his appeal against the rejection of it. That meant that had any of the selected players (one of whom had a very low rating) wanted to go, Dusan could not have been offered a place.

However every single one of the selected U18 players declined a place. At this point the place was offered to Dusan because he had made an application, albeit one way too late to be accepted.

Interesting. Since everyone declined and only Dusan was offered the place then really his late application was not completely rejected. Were it were then there should have been a fresh call for interested applicants and (as a curtesy perhaps) Dusan could have been personally notified and asked to apply.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:32 PM
So on this basis...My 7 year old daughter could have appllied for the under 18's and have been Australia's representative if only she had applied in time?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:34 PM
Interesting. Since everyone declined and only Dusan was offered the place then really his late application was not completely rejected.

That's a matter of definition. From the point of view of the formalised selection process conducted by the JSC it was rejected, but his apparent interest became relevant to Council once it came to trying to fill an extraordinary vacancy.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:35 PM
re my post?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:37 PM
So on this basis...My 7 year old daughter could have appllied for the under 18's and have been Australia's representative if only she had applied in time?

Only if the selectors decided she was strong enough.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:37 PM
What????
Tell if you dare...who is representing the ulnder 12's?

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 09:40 PM
That's a matter of definition. From the point of view of the formalised selection process conducted by the JSC it was rejected, but his apparent interest became relevant to Council once it came to trying to fill an extraordinary vacancy.

Well the point benig the late application lead to Dusan having an advantage over all the other non-applicants. Given that the offer was not taken up I guess the point is moot. However council's decision to offer the place to Dusan would not have held up in organisations which must be careful about not showing a bias, and have rigorous tender procedures.

So do you know who is gonig in the U12 division?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 09:45 PM
What????
Tell if you dare...who is representing the ulnder 12's?

I'm tempted to say "Peter Costello" but actually I don't remember offhand. All I know is that that division is not vacant, so it must be one of those who originally applied on time.


Well the point benig the late application lead to Dusan having an advantage over all the other non-applicants.

This is true although I don't see it as a problem.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 09:46 PM
I think you can look it up so will you please sir do that?

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 09:50 PM
This is true although I don't see it as a problem.

At the very least you would have to say the late application was only rejected as an application but accepted as an expression of interest. As there was no call for expressions then this is just breach of selection protocol.

Perhaps there was an "extraordinary" vacancy but surely that vacancy should have been filled using an unbiased procedure or left vacant.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:00 PM
The kid representin Australia in the under 12's is a kid by the name of Alex Stanke

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:00 PM
His rating is a very nice 1283

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:01 PM
I think you can look it up

I'm not so sure. I have no involvement relevant to the other divisions and I'm not sure I have ever been advised who is actually going in the U12s. It's not relevant to discussing the Stojic situation anyway.


At the very least you would have to say the late application was only rejected as an application but accepted as an expression of interest.

Yes I agree with that although it was only accepted as an expression of interest because all selected candidates were exhausted.


As there was no call for expressions then this is just breach of selection protocol.

I disagree. The ACF's selection protocols clearly do not make any provision for a situation in which all legitimate applications have been exhausted and a position needs to be filled at short notice, so it is open to Council to make any decision it wishes in such cases.


Perhaps there was an "extraordinary" vacancy but surely that vacancy should have been filled using an unbiased procedure or left vacant.

There was no bias and leaving the position vacant is one of the worst available options.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:01 PM
good for a junior

arosar
27-07-2006, 10:01 PM
I'm trying to follow this. If only Mischa here can stop posting one-liners.

Did JM submit an application on time? Or was his application also late?

AR

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:02 PM
my junior was not good enough cos he was a day late ( or something like that)
his rating is 1748

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:02 PM
The kid representin Australia in the under 12's is a kid by the name of Alex Stanke

Well there you go. He's not from the ACT!


His rating is a very nice 1283

And if Arrogant-One had not got himself banned he could tell you how "underrated" he is.

arosar
27-07-2006, 10:03 PM
OK, so he was a day late, or whatever, and was the strongest among all applicants except for Dusan? Is that it?

AR

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:05 PM
I'm trying to follow this.

I'd just like to stress that my comments on this thread are not made in a selection co-ordinator fashion since Brett did the junior selections; I only do the adult selections and had no involvement in this one.


Did JM submit an application on time? Or was his application also late?


His was late and Brett rejected it as required by the by-laws. This has been discussed plenty on this thread.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:05 PM
not sure
but the kid representing the under 12's ia atleast 500 ponts below him

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:07 PM
It was late because I had no idea the selection was happening...when I pointed this out shortly aftet selection closed i was told effectively..NO gO
Jenni said if I would guarentee that james WOULD go then she would see that this decison was overturned

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:07 PM
OK, so he was a day late, or whatever, and was the strongest among all applicants except for Dusan? Is that it?

Mischa - which divisions was James' late application for?

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:15 PM
the under 12 and under 14 I think...but it is also likely that I applied accross the board....ummm come to think of it iamde a formal request on this BB to be considered even tho I was late thru no fault of my own. It was quite briefly and rudely rejected

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 10:20 PM
Yes I agree with that although it was only accepted as an expression of interest because all selected candidates were exhausted.

Well on that we can agree at least.


I disagree. The ACF's selection protocols clearly do not make any provision for a situation in which all legitimate applications have been exhausted and a position needs to be filled at short notice, so it is open to Council to make any decision it wishes in such cases.

I did not say ACF selection protocol. But selection protocol in general would not include such a proviso. I think in generally clauses like "left the discetion of council" do not constitute protocol.


There was no bias and leaving the position vacant is one of the worst available options.

Perhaps, but fill at all costs may lead to something even worse.

First the is the question of a transparency and the need to avoid the suspicion of bias. Secondly (though not applicable in Dusan's case) is the question of too weak a player representing the country. In both case a vacancy is IMHO preferable.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:25 PM
the under 12 and under 14 I think...but it is also likely that I applied accross the board....

It would help answer one of Amiel's questions if you knew which divisions he applied for in an application to the JSC. Assuming U18 wasn't specified then the answer to Amiel's last question is no, since James was not an applicant for Dusan's division at all. Rather he was a late applicant for divisions that were filled by applicants who were on time.


ummm come to think of it iamde a formal request on this BB to be considered even tho I was late thru no fault of my own. It was quite briefly and rudely rejected

A request made on this BB isn't "formal", it's simply irrelevant. Applications, even late ones, go to the Junior Selection Co-ordinator.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:39 PM
I did not say ACF selection protocol. But selection protocol in general would not include such a proviso. I think in generally clauses like "left the discetion of council" do not constitute protocol.

Perhaps someone could quote comparable examples from other selection protocols used by other groups?

It's quite common when voluntary organisations which have to fill positions to have deadlines for formal applications and procedures to fill them, but if there are no timely and willing applicants the organisation can fill those positions how it likes. There are generally not howls of protest about this because if you didn't apply on time in the first place, you don't have a leg to stand on no matter what your view of how the position is filled - applying on time would have solved the problem.


First the is the question of a transparency and the need to avoid the suspicion of bias.

No sense in suspicion of bias here. The Council that made this decision was the same one that through its selectors declined to let Dusan Stojic play in the last Aus Champs because we were not convinced he was strong enough at the time.

I don't accept transparency or avoidance of perception of bias as a legitimate argument when the selection process has been exhausted and time is short. Anyone wanting to apply via the transparent selection process has already had their chance to do so on time.


Secondly (though not applicable in Dusan's case) is the question of too weak a player representing the country. In both case a vacancy is IMHO preferable.

I agree with this as a case where a vacancy would be preferable, and I also agree that the selection of weak players as reserve (and hence potential #1 in the case of withdrawals) selections was a problem with this new selection procedure. Council certainly did not intend that players with very low ratings get selected as reserves but yet the selectors (overall) considered them suitable. This will need to be resolved for the future in my view.

Had Stojic been a very weak late applicant I think it is extremely unlikely that Council would have offered him a place on account of merely being interested.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:43 PM
and yet the under 12 rep is rated neartly 500 points below james

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 10:50 PM
The suspicion of bias is a difficult thing to prevent as conspiracy theorists are oneproblem. The other is undisclosed conflicts upon which the theorists thrive.

The only and best way is to have a clear and transparent protocol which is followed scrupulously.

When thinking about processes where the suspicion of bias must be absent I was thinking of tender process followed by government organisations. Perhaps overkill for a volunteer sporting body but maybe there are lessons to be learnt.

Mischa
27-07-2006, 10:52 PM
Wouldn't the most sensible idea to be application by invitation????
Based on rating???

arosar
27-07-2006, 10:54 PM
OK, so you sent a shotgun application including for the U12. So, insofar as that div is concerned at least, your upset because the rep is weaker than JM and even though JM was late, you say JM should be successful because of a precedent in the higher higher division. So basically you're saying that a late application of a stronger player should be successful? Is that it?

Can't you just like explain it instead of one-liners?

AR

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 10:58 PM
My view (based on lots of experience of dealing with conspiracy theorists in various political issues) is that nothing prevents them from doing their thing on one level or another and that therefore there is no point taking their reactions into account in designing a process. The important thing is not thier perception, but the actual delivery of procedural fairness. This is acheived when the process for dealing with those who can apply by a reasonable deadline (or with a satisfactory exuse if not) is fair. Those who don't apply on time lose that consideration.


When thinking about processes where the suspicion of bias must be absent I was thinking of tender process followed by government organisations. Perhaps overkill for a volunteer sporting body but maybe there are lessons to be learnt.

What happens in such tender processes where no adequate tender is submitted in time and there is a need to attempt to assign the task urgently?

arosar
27-07-2006, 11:08 PM
Hey Kevo, I think maybe I'm with RW on this one mate. If this bloke was late, and the rules say that's it, then that's it. End of story. As it was, this bloke got himself an unfair advantage.

Mate, I think you lot are in trouble again.

AR

pax
27-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Wouldn't the most sensible idea to be application by invitation????
Based on rating???
Ratings can be misleading, especially when it comes to juniors.

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:15 PM
The kid representin Australia in the under 12's is a kid by the name of Alex StankeWhere did you get this information from. As far as I know Australia's U12 representative is Raymond Song.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 11:17 PM
Hey Kevo, I think maybe I'm with RW on this one mate. If this bloke was late, and the rules say that's it, then that's it. End of story.

Which it was - as far as the formal selection procedure was concerned.


Mate, I think you lot are in trouble again.

Ooooh, does that mean a sensationalised simplistic beatup on your blog followed by ineffectual whining from some of the usual suspects? I can scarcely wait! :rolleyes:

This stuff isn't news AR. You could have worked out most of it just from reading your Newsletter last week.

zzzzzzzzz

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 11:18 PM
Where did you get this information from. As far as I know Australia's U12 representative is Raymond Song.

I'll take Bill's word over Mischa's anyday on this, unless corrected otherwise.

arosar
27-07-2006, 11:21 PM
Look, the woman's upset. Do you have to like rub it in like that? What's the matter with you blokes?

AR

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 11:26 PM
Where did you get this information from. As far as I know he is only a secondary selection and Australia's U12 primary selection is Raymond Song.

Did you know this 3 weeks ago when the question was originally asked here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=110636&postcount=95)?

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:26 PM
I'll take Bill's word over Mischa's anyday on this, unless corrected otherwise.As far as I know Alex Stanke is only a secondary selection in the U12's.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 11:29 PM
Look, the woman's upset. Do you have to like rub it in like that? What's the matter with you blokes?

Whatever it is, at least it's not your sexism. :hand:

arosar
27-07-2006, 11:32 PM
Whatever it is, at least it's not your sexism. :hand:

Listen, I get away with it because it's me. You can't get away with it because it's you. And the two of youse fellas are ACF councillors ganging up on a mother who's upset.

Sorry about the imagery in that last sentence there, but you know what I mean.

AR

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:40 PM
Did you know this 3 weeks ago when the question was originally asked here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=110636&postcount=95)?I knew it from posts #1 and #25 in this thread who the primary and secondary selections were.
If you mean as of three weeks ago did I know if he had accepted, well all I knew was that I hadnt heard he had rejected it.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2006, 11:42 PM
Listen, I get away with it because it's me.

No, you get away with it because you are posting in an overwhelmingly male-dominated environment and because no matter how sexist you are antichrist will always be worse.


You can't get away with it because it's you.

Try me. Let's find out. :cool:


And the two of youse fellas are ACF councillors ganging up on a mother who's upset.

Melodramatic rubbish. I was actually answering such questions as I could then Bill corrected one apparent factual error (that if Bill is right, actually removes one of the grounds for Mischa's complaint). I posted my agreement after Mischa suspended her account and the reason I did so was so that a claim that may not be accurate would not be held up as my definite view.

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:42 PM
Listen, I get away with it because it's me. You can't get away with it because it's you. And the two of youse fellas are ACF councillors ganging up on a mother who's upset.If you paid the slightest attention AR you would have noticed she had her account suspended before I posted.

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 11:46 PM
I knew it from posts #1 and #25 in this thread who the primary and secondary selections were.

As did we all.


If you mean as of three weeks ago did I know if he had accepted, well all I knew was that I hadnt heard he had rejected it.

Are you likely to have heard? Have you since heard anything more definite either way?

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:50 PM
Are you likely to have heard? Have you since heard anything more definite either way?I thought post #149 made what I know clear.

Rincewind
27-07-2006, 11:52 PM
I thought post #149 made what I know clear.

If you read my questions again you will see that is not what I asked.

Bill Gletsos
27-07-2006, 11:59 PM
If you read my questions again you will see that is not what I asked.Perhaps you should go back and read post #149 as it is now as I originally posted it. I had changed it to give more information about Alex but decided it was not so clear so I changed it back to my original wording.

Rincewind
28-07-2006, 12:07 AM
Perhaps you should go back and read post #149 as it is now as I originally posted it. I had changed it to give more information about Alex but decided it was not so clear so I changed it back to my original wording.

Nope. I must have missed the middle version. Every time I read it it seemed pretty much the same.

Perhaps I should explain myself. My questions were

Are you likely to have heard?

That is, are you privy to any flows of information where a rejection is likely to have been brought to your attention and therefore more likely than the average poster to put faith in continuing accuracy of posts #1 and #25 of this thread?

Have you since heard anything more definite either way?

Has there been any specific intelligence you know of on the intention of Ray to take up selection? (The phrase "either way" is superfluous since based on your posts to date I can assume you haven't heard anything more definite in the negative).

Bill Gletsos
28-07-2006, 12:13 AM
Nope. I must have missed the middle version. Every time I read it it seemed pretty much the same.I'm surprised as you normally pick up on things like this.
If you look at #149, look at #151 where Kevin quoted it and look at your quote of it in #153 you can see the clear difference. In your quote I referred to Raymond as the primary selection. In Post #149 and Kevins #151 I call him our U12 representative. I see that as a clear distinction.

Perhaps I should explain myself. My questions were

Are you likely to have heard?

That is, are you privy to any flows of information where a rejection is likely to have been brought to your attention and therefore more likely than the average poster to put faith in continuing accuracy of posts #1 and #25 of this thread?Probably.


Have you since heard anything more definite either way?

Has there been any specific intelligence you know of on the intention of Ray to take up selection? (The phrase "either way" is superfluous since based on your posts to date I can assume you haven't heard anything more definite in the negative).Possibly.

MichaelBaron
28-07-2006, 12:28 AM
True. In fact U18 section will provide him with even better experience

Denis_Jessop
28-07-2006, 12:53 AM
These are the Junior Selections officially announced in ACF Newslettr #372 of 31 May 2006.

Junior selections:

World Youth u16 Chess Olympiad
Agri, Turkey. 5-13 August 2006

1.Christopher Wallis
*2.Zhigen Wilson Lin
*3.Rukman Vijayakumar
*4.Ben Harris
*5.Derek Yu
6.Jessica Kinder
7.Deborah Ng
8.Susan Sheng
9.Sanesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championships (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 2 - 17 October 2006

*1.Tomek Rej
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Denis Bourmistrov
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Rukman Vijayakumar
*6.Nick Chernih
7.Douglas Lindberg
8.Brayden Kent John Soo
9.Derek Yu
10.Sanjesh Ranit Kumar

World Junior Championship Girls (u20)
Yerevan, Armenia 12 – 17 October 2006

*1.Shannon Oliver
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng


World Youth Championships
Batumi, Georgia 20 – 31 October 2006 [now 18 - 29 October DJ]

Under 18 Boys
1.Gareth Oliver
2.Christopher Wallis
3.James Cronan
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Devrim van Dijk
8.Derek Yu
9.Sanesh Rajit Kumar

Under 18 Girls
*1.Alex Jule
2.Jessica Kinder
3.Sally Yu
4.Susan Sheng

Under 16 Boys
*1.James Obst
2.Christopher Wallis
3.Justin Huang
4.Zhigen Wilson Lin
5.Max Illingworth
6.Rukman Vijayakumar
7.Derek Yu
8.Sanesh Ranjit Kumar

Under 16 Girls
*1.Jessica Kinder
2.Deborah Ng
3.Sally Yu
4.Tamzin Oliver
5.Susan Sheng
6.Karisma Davina Kumar

Under 14 Boys
*1.Zhigen Wilson Lin
2.Max Illingworth
*3.Andrew Brown
4.Ben Harris
5.Edwin Wu
6.Derek Yu
7.Jason Tang
8.Alan Glenton

Under 14 Girls
*1.Angela Song
2.Sally Yu
3.Karishma Davina Kumar

Under 12 Boys
*1.Raymond Song
2.Eugene Schon
3.Alexander Stahnke

Under 12 Girls
*1.Sally Yu

Under 10 Boys
*1.Laurence Matheson
*2.Joshua Lau
*3.Oscar Wang
*4.Alex Grossman
5.Cedric Koh

Under 10 Girls
*1.Megan Setiabudi
*2.Clarise Koh
3.Hannah Jordan Triscott
*4.Alannah Stevenson Byrne

To these is added
Under 8 Boys
*1.Cedric Koh

(Notified last week.)

The players are listed in the order in which they were ranked by the selectors.

On the information I now have, which is virtually final, except for the u18 boys, those players marked with an asterisk are actually going.

This information is posted for that purpose only. I do not propose to enter into any debate on this forum about the matter. Anyone who wishes to raise a matter officially with the ACF should do so through the proper channels of which this forum is not one.

DJ

MichaelBaron
28-07-2006, 01:23 AM
So on this basis...My 7 year old daughter could have appllied for the under 18's and have been Australia's representative if only she had applied in time?


Sounds good :) She will have fun in Georgia:owned:

MichaelBaron
28-07-2006, 01:24 AM
Only if the selectors decided she was strong enough.


Hm..i wonder what is the basis for deciding whether someone is strong enough or not...:hmm:

Rincewind
28-07-2006, 07:40 AM
Hm..i wonder what is the basis for deciding whether someone is strong enough or not...:hmm:

I imagine that would be in the guidelines for selectors.

Brian_Jones
28-07-2006, 08:41 AM
Wouldn't the most sensible idea to be application by invitation????
Based on rating???

Yes, I agree. This was how it was done almost 20 years ago.

The ACF Director of Junior Chess (an experienced player) pencilled in the best eligible juniors for each event and then made personal approaches!

Sometime the personal touch is better than the bland selection rules and faceless selectors.

Ian Rout
28-07-2006, 09:08 AM
Yes, I agree. This was how it was done almost 20 years ago.

The ACF Director of Junior Chess (an experienced player) pencilled in the best eligible juniors for each event and then made personal approaches!

Sometime the personal touch is better than the bland selection rules and faceless selectors.
There are two issues in there. Should it be based on rating? Certainly not; junior ratings are even less of a guide and easier to manipulate than for adults, apart from the general undesirability of giving people even more reason to obsess about ratings.

Should it be by invitation? Well maybe there's something to be said for that.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2006, 12:30 PM
The ACF Director of Junior Chess (an experienced player) pencilled in the best eligible juniors for each event and then made personal approaches!

Sometime the personal touch is better than the bland selection rules and faceless selectors.

Surely the potential for controversy over bias (etc) if that is the primary method of conducting selections must be astronomical? I have no issue with it as a way of filling slots not filled by primary selections.

Bill Gletsos
28-07-2006, 01:48 PM
Yes, I agree. This was how it was done almost 20 years ago.20 years ago wasnt the only event the World Junior (U20) event. If there were others can you name them.

MichaelBaron
28-07-2006, 02:14 PM
20 years ago wasnt the only event the World Junior (U20) event. If there were others can you name them.


World U16 has been taking place since 1974 or so.

Bill Gletsos
28-07-2006, 02:21 PM
World U16 has been taking place since 1974 or so.Thanks. I thought there was another but couldnt recall which one.

Nowadays there are far more with U10, U12, U14 and U18 and the recently introduced U8 as part of the world Youth event as well as other junior events.

pax
28-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Yes, I agree. This was how it was done almost 20 years ago.

The ACF Director of Junior Chess (an experienced player) pencilled in the best eligible juniors for each event and then made personal approaches!

Sometime the personal touch is better than the bland selection rules and faceless selectors.

I daresay 20 years ago, there were:
a) fewer international selective events
b) fewer juniors in the frame for selection
c) fewer juniors still with the resources to attend an OS tournament

It's a big job these days, and a lot of people are personally affected by the decisions made. A selection panel with clear criteria is pretty clearly preferable if you have the time and the people to run the process.

Brian_Jones
28-07-2006, 04:10 PM
20 years ago wasnt the only event the World Junior (U20) event. If there were others can you name them.

World Youth Championships, World Cadet Championships, World Junior Girls, Asian Junior Championships, Asian Junior Girls were all established and going strong 18 years ago.

Shane Hill won the Asian Junior and his IM title in Dubai in either 1987 or 1988.

Australia took a team of 8 players to World Youth Championships in Puerto Rico in 1990.

Nancy Lane (nee Jones) won the Silver medal for Australia in the Asian Girls Championship (U20) in Medan in 1991.

pax
20-01-2007, 11:39 AM
Any reason why this thread is still sticky??

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2007, 03:06 PM
Any reason why this thread is still sticky??

Not that I can see. De-stickied.