PDA

View Full Version : Ballarat Begonia Open



chesslover
07-03-2004, 05:30 PM
anyone know what is happening to this event? This is supposed to be the number 2 weekender in Australia, and yet there is no news.

Any mexicans out there who can update us?

ursogr8
07-03-2004, 10:04 PM
anyone know what is happening to this event? This is supposed to be the number 2 weekender in Australia, and yet there is no news.

Any mexicans out there who can update us?

CL

First, there was a link in the Chess VICTORIA newsletter, I mentioned Thursday.
Second, there is a thread under Tournaments that is specifically 38th Ballarat/Begonia
Third, I am not sure they run to live games and web-updates between rounds. Dial in and see.

starter

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:08 PM
CL

First, there was a link in the Chess VICTORIA newsletter, I mentioned Thursday.
Second, there is a thread under Tournaments that is specifically 38th Ballarat/Begonia
Third, I am not sure they run to live games and web-updates between rounds. Dial in and see.

starter

okay, thanks

I just assumed that as other tournaments were updated here, that the Ballarat one would be too

Bas
09-03-2004, 04:06 PM
Are those impatient individuals irritating! For some reason Mr.Chesslover wants the results already on the second day of the tournament (7/3)! Apparently, he doesn't seem to read anything else than this bulletin board,as there was plenty of pre-tournament publicity, eg.Australian Forum, ACF Bulletin, VCA Newsletter, Newspaper columns etc.
Anyway, after we got about one night rest to recover, here follows the final standing list. Give me some more time and you will have some further details.

We had again a great turn-out (118), with a very broad top section, a very good number of juniors (again), great weather, and with Stephen Solomon winning again.
Equal 2nd became some other (ex-?) Queenslanders (!) Anastasiya Sorokina and David Smerdon, together with Guy West.

Bas van Riel

38TH BALLARAT BEGONIA OPEN 2004
6-8th March

Final Standings
Place Name Feder Rating Score

1 SOLOMON, Stephen VIC 2446 6.5
2-4 WEST, Guy VIC 2383 6
SMERDON, David VIC 2380 6
SOROKINA, Anastasia QLD 2204 6
5-6 RUJEVIC, Mirko VIC 2276 5.5
HUMPHREY, Jonathan QLD 2062 5.5
7-18 FROEHLICH, Peter VIC 2400 5
BOOTH, Stewart VIC 2149 5
OGADA-OSIR, Ibrahim VIC 1744 5
FLITNEY, Adrian SA 1989 5
HAMILTON, Doug VIC 2238 5
JONES, Lee NSW 2071 5
WRIGHT, Ian VIC 2031 5
DIZDAREVIC, Mehmed VIC 2006 5
O'CARROLL, Jeremy VIC 2067 5
DRAGICEVIC, Domagoj VIC 2009 5
FLETCHER, Steven VIC 1877 5
CHARLES, Gareth NSW 2106 5
19-30 RUTHERFORD, Simon VIC 2366 4.5
BOURMISTROV, Denis VIC 2112 4.5
SANDLER, Leonid VIC 2371 4.5
VOON, Richard VIC 1920 4.5
PYKE, Malcolm VIC 1978 4.5
LOJANICA, Milenko VIC 2085 4.5
STOJIC, Dusan VIC 1935 4.5
LUGO, Ruperto VIC 1781 4.5
BOOTH, Shane VIC 1998 4.5
PAPADINIS, Jim VIC 1752 4.5
LIN, Zhigen VIC 1559 4.5
KARA, Barbaros VIC 1688 4.5
31-52 HOLT, Kenneth VIC 1860 4
RAINE, Marcus VIC 1947 4
JAGER, Jesse VIC 1821 4
PECORI, Ascaro VIC 2023 4
SZUVEGES, Narelle VIC 1774 4
JONES, Brian NSW 2128 4
ANDERSON, Alistair VIC 1847 4
LISTON, Howard VIC 1788 4
McDONALD, Joel VIC 2100 4
VAN RIEL, Bas VIC 1829 4
BROCKMAN, Roland VIC 1703 4
STOJIC, Svetozar VIC 1772 4
WALLIS, Christopher VIC 1549 4
LYCETT, Garry VIC 1678 4
DOUR, Nicholas VIC 1614 4
BARROW, Nigel VIC 1869 4
VAN DIJK, Devrim VIC 1560 4
JIA, Jing VIC 1803 4
WOLF, Peter VIC 1655 4
ANTONIAZZI, Francesco VIC 1715 4
OGDEN, Marcus VIC 1703 4
STANISHEFF, Alex VIC 1492 4
53-68 TSAGARAKIS, Angelo VIC 1864 3.5
McCART, Richard VIC 1798 3.5
GHOBRIAL, Adel VIC 1637 3.5
MARTIN, Richard VIC 1299 3.5
FROST, Peter VIC 1833 3.5
FLETCHER, Andrew VIC 1754 3.5
LIDUMS, Aivars SA 1734 3.5
STEWART, Scott VIC 1687 3.5
FITZPATRICK, Andrew ACT 1763 3.5
LINDBERG, Gordon VIC 1757 3.5
FLUDE, David VIC 1751 3.5
HICKMAN, Casey VIC 1319 3.5
ROBERTS, Mark VIC 1814 3.5
MOLLARD, Maxwell VIC 1612 3.5
KERKSAL, David VIC 1424 3.5
McKENCHIE, Andrew SA 1348 3.5
69-91 KALISCH, Tom VIC 1829 3
JUSZCZYNSKI, Matthew SA 1709 3
MELDAU, Henning VIC 1623 3
KAPLAN, Alex VIC 1646 3
COOK, Patrick VIC 1784 3
DALTON, Joshua VIC 620 3
BROTHERIDGE, Jamie VIC 1600 3
BULTMAN, Grant VIC 1578 3
FRANGAKIS, John VIC 1380 3
FINLAY, Colin NSW 1594 3
ANDREWS, Charlie VIC 1630 3
COONEY, Matthew VIC 1150 3
SMITH, Wendy VIC 1220 3
KOSTRZEWA, Jake VIC 1123 3
BAILEY, Mitchel VIC 1259 3
GLENTON, Alan VIC 1200 3
YOUNG, Darren VIC 1003 3
HOPF, Lorna VIC 1164 3
STEWART, Clint VIC 1304 3
DALTON, Laurie VIC 1054 3
ELDRIDGE, James VIC 1286 3
YU, Sally VIC 711 3
YU, Derek VIC 1140 3
92-98 MORRIS, James VIC 1420 2.5
POWER, Paul VIC 1608 2.5
BAILEY, Robert VIC 1369 2.5
SOCO, Dejan VIC 1603 2.5
BROWN, Cyril SA 1506 2.5
FRASER, Reuben VIC 600 2.5
THEODOSIOU, Peter VIC 1123 2.5
99-110 HAMILTON, Ian VIC 1364 2
ROWSTON, Bruce VIC 1386 2
SCHON, Eugene VIC 853 2
DALTON, Samuel VIC 1014 2
TAYLOR, Stephen VIC 1652 2
LUGO, Jerome VIC 909 2
EUSTACE, Sophie VIC 467 2
TOPER, David VIC 803 2
VAN DIJK, Marieke VIC 753 2
KENMURE, Jamie VIC 800 2
BELL, Nathan VIC 600 2
AMBROSE, Lauren VIC 400 2
111-113 QIAN, Dennish VIC 835 1.5
THAKUR, Udit VIC 1080 1.5
BELL, David VIC 1031 1.5
114-117 BALNIONIS, Alex VIC 900 1
McCART, Tully VIC 767 1
SKYLLAS, Elizabeth VIC 600 1
BELL, Laura VIC 400 1
118 BOSMAN, Kevin VIC 600 0.5

firegoat7
10-03-2004, 01:34 PM
Congratulations on the outstanding turn out for the tournament Bas. It is a credit to you and the Ballarat committee!

Could we have a couple of games please?

Cheers FG7

ChessGuru
10-03-2004, 08:57 PM
Thank you FG for your good words about the Ballarat Tournament.

You will note that since Chess World has been sponsoring the event they have achieved their Highest 2 attendances of ALL TIME!

119 in 2003 was a record, and this year 118 was just short....in previous years the tournament was around the 90-100 player mark, but Bas will have all the stats.

jase
10-03-2004, 09:50 PM
Congrats to Bas and his team for the outstanding turn-out at Ballarat.

I haven't had more than a cursory inspection yet, but the pairings on the top boards look curious - the top seeds seemed to avoid each other a lot - perhaps SwissPerfect adhering to its colour alternation regime?

chesslover
10-03-2004, 10:41 PM
We had again a great turn-out (118), with a very broad top section, a very good number of juniors (again), great weather, and with Stephen Solomon winning again.
Equal 2nd became some other (ex-?) Queenslanders (!) Anastasiya Sorokina and David Smerdon, together with Guy West.

Bas van Riel


well done on having such a massive turnout

Great to see david smerdon right up there, after his aust champs performance. great way to remind the olympaid selectors that he is back

Bas
10-03-2004, 10:59 PM
In reply to some of the queries and comments made, I would like to firstly acknowledge Kevin Perrin's role as the driving force (for many, many years; 38?) behind the Ballarat Begonia. Therefore, it should be Kevin and his team, and not me etc.who should be congratulated with our success. Kevin not only is the DOP of the event, but he also organises the committee, and does many other things during and in between the rounds. Even collecting the rubbish and setting up the boards.
But it really is a collective effort by the members of the Ballarat Chess Club under his supervision. I am probably the one who makes most of our 'noise' via internet and other media, to try and promote the Begonia, before and after...

Secondly, ChessGuru is even more than correct by saying that the Begonia had 118 (this year), 119 (2003) entrees, coinciding with ChessWorld's sponsorship support (coincidental or causal?) compared to 76 entrees in 2002 and 79 in 2001. We had a previous record of 90 players in 2000.
So, certainly in numbers we have strongly expanded lately.

Firegoat asked for some games to be published. I am still in the (tedious) process of punching them into my computer, and moreover I am not sure yet which games are the best to show at this stage.
We have collected all the scoresheets of the top-ten boards of each rounds. They will be distributed and published on our website, hopefully within the next few days.
But here are two games, one by the tournament winner.

Doug Hamilton - Stephen Solomon
Ballarat Begonia'04.rnd4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nc6 8.e5 h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.fxg5 Nd5 11.Nxd5 exd5 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Qe2+ Kf8 14.0𢠢 Nxd4 15.Rxd4 hxg5 16.Bf2 Bf5 17.Qd2 Be4 18.Be3 Be5 19.Rb4 Qd6 20.Bxg5 Rh5 21.Be3 d4 22.Be2 Rc8 23.Bxh5 Rxc2+ 24.Kd1 Rxd2+ 25.Bxd2 Bf4 26.Rb3 Bxd2 01

Anastasia Sorokina Peter Froehlich
Ballarat Begonia'04.rnd7
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.00 Be7 9.f4 Bb7 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Bc5 12.Be3 Bxd4 13.Bxd4 Nc6 14.exf6 Qxd4+ 15.Kh1 gxf6 16.Qh5 Qe5 17.Qh3 Ne7 18.Rae1 Qd4 19.Ne2 Qxb2 20.Nf4 0𢠢 21.Bxe6+ fxe6 22.Nxe6 Nc6 23.Nxd8+ Kxd8 24.Rd1+ Kc7 25.Rd7+ Kb8 26.Qg3+ Ne5 27.Rxb7+ Kxb7 28.Qg7+ Nf7 29.Qxf7+ Kb8 30.Qxf6 Qxf6 31.Rxf6 Kb7 32.Rh6 Rc8 33.Rxh7+ Kb6 34.g4 Rxc2 35.g5 b4 36.g6 Rc8 37.g7 Rg8 38.Rh6+ Kc5 39.Rg6 a5 40.h4 a4 41.h5 b3 42.h6 b2 43.Rg1 Kc4 44.Rb1 Kc3 45.Rxb2 Kxb2 46.h7 10

jeffrei
10-03-2004, 11:25 PM
Looking through the results at Ballarat I came to a rather disturbing discovery - I noticed that none of the three people on 6/7 played either Solomon or another person who got 6/7! Now I'm not having a go at these players - obviously they can't help who they're paired against - but from a competitive point of view I find it very unsatisfactory. I don't have access to the records from past Ballarat tournaments, but I can think of a couple of other instances where this has happened: in 1996 I got 6/7 at Ballarat equal second with Kontorovich while Johansen came first with 6.5/7 - I didn't play Kontorovich or Johansen. In 1999 I got 6/7 equal first with Chapman and Johansen - I didn't play Chapman or Johansen. As I've said I don't have full access to the tournament records but there you go I've just named 5 recentish instances where someone has got 6/7 without playing anyone above them or equal with them. Presumably the (CG fuelled?) increase in numbers only makes this sort of thing more likely to happen.

I'm a big fan of the accelerated system they have at Box Hill whereby the field is split into two groups - it cuts down a lot on junk pairings and the yo-yo between high and low rated players that many competitors experience in so-called 'Monster Swisses'. It also makes the rating prizes much more meaningful because you're generally playing only against people from your own rating group. Starter, do you think it'd be feasible to use the Box Hill approach at Ballarat? Would it be feasible to have 3 groups at a big tournament like Ballarat (as opposed to the 2 at Box Hill)?

PS: The other way of looking at this is to say that Solo came first without playing any of the people who came second! It just seems wrong to me.

ursogr8
11-03-2004, 07:12 AM
Looking through the results at Ballarat I came to a rather disturbing discovery - I noticed that none of the three people on 6/7 played either Solomon or another person who got 6/7! Now I'm not having a go at these players - obviously they can't help who they're paired against - but from a competitive point of view I find it very unsatisfactory. I don't have access to the records from past Ballarat tournaments, but I can think of a couple of other instances where this has happened: in 1996 I got 6/7 at Ballarat equal second with Kontorovich while Johansen came first with 6.5/7 - I didn't play Kontorovich or Johansen. In 1999 I got 6/7 equal first with Chapman and Johansen - I didn't play Chapman or Johansen. As I've said I don't have full access to the tournament records but there you go I've just named 5 recentish instances where someone has got 6/7 without playing anyone above them or equal with them. Presumably the (CG fuelled?) increase in numbers only makes this sort of thing more likely to happen.

I'm a big fan of the accelerated system they have at Box Hill whereby the field is split into two groups - it cuts down a lot on junk pairings and the yo-yo between high and low rated players that many competitors experience in so-called 'Monster Swisses'. It also makes the rating prizes much more meaningful because you're generally playing only against people from your own rating group. Starter, do you think it'd be feasible to use the Box Hill approach at Ballarat? Would it be feasible to have 3 groups at a big tournament like Ballarat (as opposed to the 2 at Box Hill)?

PS: The other way of looking at this is to say that Solo came first without playing any of the people who came second! It just seems wrong to me.

jeffrei

I am dizzy with the appearance of some-one else speaking in postive terms about the Box Hill accelerated SWISS; after all this time. :eek:

The fundamental issues are
>1 Players prefer competitive games.
>> 2 In your view the Ballarat pairings failed in this respect
>>> 3 The Box Hill accelerated SWISS method requires 3rd and 4th quartile players to agree at the point of entry to the tournament that they are not eligible for A Division prizes. (With a field of 120 it would be tempting to run a C Division too, and hence 5th and 6th sextile players would need to agree not to be eligible for B division nor A Division prizes).

And would I vote for it if I was on the organising committee? Yes.

But remember from the VIC OPEN thread I got out-voted when I proposed it for that tournament. Not all see the issue the same way. Some even think the SWISS system is sacred (not to be fiddled with for major events) and are willing to back it up with donations (see on the VIC OPEN web-site; it has attracted a donation from the 'Society for the pure SWISS').

If Bas van Riel would like to send me his SWISS Perect files of the tournament I will calculate the competitive index for each round.

starter

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 10:43 AM
Jeffrei,

starter and i can attest that you wont get very far on here trying to push any system other than the monster swiss. Starter has tried to push the accelerated version and i have suggested two ideas.

the first being a system where the top players are guaranteed to meet in the last or second last round, but i found it very difficult to actually get to work in practical terms.

the second system is similar to the dividing into groups idea. My idea was that for say ballarat with 118 entries and seven rounds, that there would be eight players in each group and you would play each player in that group. So effectively 15 groups of 8. Ok that would be too many groups and prizes for this tourney. Therefore the groups could be sizes of 12 and use the swiss system in each mini group. the groups are divided based on acf rating.

The top players would be in group A and so on down the draw.

I didnt get anywhere with this idea but i am going to pursue it at my club ;)

arosar
11-03-2004, 11:02 AM
Listen here right, if all you wanna bloody do is play payers of your own rating, then go find yourself a closed event, OK. Leave swiss system alone.

And here's another thing, please, please what's with this 'ish' business? I hear people say, "oh I meet you at 8ish" or "4ish". I tell you I've heard of worse examples now, by jeffo, 'recentish'. Puh-lllzzzz....

Actually, I reckon that deserves a whole new thread. Whaddya blokes reckon of 'ish' business? What's the worse specimens you've heard or read?

AR

jeffrei
11-03-2004, 11:20 AM
Listen here right, if all you wanna bloody do is play payers (sic) of your own rating, then go find yourself a closed event

At Box Hill you generally play people in your own rating group - that doesn't necessarily mean that they are particularly close to you in rating - could still be 100s of points difference, but normally not 500+ points so we avoid boring games.

If what you're saying is true, then why is the Doeberl Cup so popular? All the evidence suggests that people don't like playing opponents who they have practically no chance of beating or who have practically no chance of beating them.The point about the Box Hill system is that it offers all the advantages of the Doeberl Cup format but from an administrative point of view it is almost as easy as a Monster Swiss. Furthermore, juniors who are performing hundreds of points above their rating still have the chance to 'play up'...they don't have to make the choice between playing in the u2000 division or the open division.

arosar
11-03-2004, 11:30 AM
What? I didn't say anything mate. Anyways, I am a bit sceptical about all these so-called expert arguments that such and such a tourn is popular or not because of 'X' factor. It's all BS to me I reckon. I mean, when I was eager to play chess not so long ago, I couldn't give a flying f**k what format it was. I just wanted to play chess. That was it. I suspect it's true for most other people.

AR

bobby1972
11-03-2004, 02:24 PM
that was beautiful ha ha ha

ursogr8
11-03-2004, 02:26 PM
What? I didn't say anything mate. Anyways, I am a bit sceptical about all these so-called expert arguments that such and such a tourn is popular or not because of 'X' factor. It's all BS to me I reckon. I mean, when I was eager to play chess not so long ago, I couldn't give a flying f**k what format it was. I just wanted to play chess. That was it. I suspect it's true for most other people.

AR

You old conservative AR. Can't contemplate change for the better eh. Like the old way of doing things eh. Time for you to re-visit your Canterbury Club, mate.

starter

Oepty
11-03-2004, 02:35 PM
Just for the record seeing there is no cross table here,
Solomon played
Peter Wolff,
Angelo TSAGARAKIS,
Lee JONES,
Doug HAMILTON 8th seed,
Simon RUTHERFORD 6th seed,
Peter FROEHLICH 2nd seed,
Mirko RUJEVIC 7th seed,
Considering 5th Sandler had quite a poor tournament and Rejuvic was equal first going into the last round I don't think there was too much wrong with the draw. He played quite a strong field. I don't think Smerdons tournaments shows he is back to his best yet.
Scott

arosar
11-03-2004, 03:38 PM
You old conservative AR. Can't contemplate change for the better eh. Like the old way of doing things eh. Time for you to re-visit your Canterbury Club, mate.

What are you bloody on about now? I didn't say I got somethin' against accelerated or decelerated swiss pairings. I don't care what it is. If youse fellas want me to play and I wanna play - mate, we're sweet. All I was sayin' was, quit bloody complaining about tourn format and just get on with it. Just play chess.

AR

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 04:13 PM
on a slightly different note, it has been pointed out that the top four didnt play each other. Well i would think that would be a big chance under swissperfect when there are only 7 rounds with 118 players. to almost guarantee that the top two players play each other, there would need to be 8 or 9 rounds with 118 players.

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 04:14 PM
What are you bloody on about now? I didn't say I got somethin' against accelerated or decelerated swiss pairings. I don't care what it is. If youse fellas want me to play and I wanna play - mate, we're sweet. All I was sayin' was, quit bloody complaining about tourn format and just get on with it. Just play chess.

AR
at least starter, jeffrei and i are proposing different ideas and willing to put them into action given the opportunity. Isnt that what most of us on here talk about, not enough ppl willing to be adminstrators and put their ideas into actions.

arosar
11-03-2004, 04:26 PM
FMD! Another martyr . . .

AR

samspade
12-03-2004, 08:15 PM
You old conservative AR. Can't contemplate change for the better eh. Like the old way of doing things eh. Time for you to re-visit your Canterbury Club, mate.

starter
he's not that conservative look at his posts on the city of sydney thread

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2004, 08:48 PM
on a slightly different note, it has been pointed out that the top four didnt play each other. Well i would think that would be a big chance under swissperfect when there are only 7 rounds with 118 players.

A note: "swissperfect" is not the draw system, it's a program that can be used to run the typical "swiss" draw (which is actually correctly known as the Dutch system to make things more confusing). SwissPerfect can be used to run Accelerated swisses as well as normal swisses, although the way it runs Accelerated swisses is not standard.

In the Dutch system (aka Standard Swiss) 7 rounds for 118 is indeed cutting it fine. 7 rounds is only just enough to do a knockout with the best player on the weekend playing the next best in the final round even if all games are won. With draws the resolution is slower. I personally would use accelerated pairings with this field and this many players, effectively removing junk round 1, although acceleration produces a more bunched and hence randomised midfield in return for better testing the winners.

A winner on 6.5/7 will generally be far more deserving than runners-up on 6/7 who didn't meet that winner. However second place is a bit of a lottery in such cases.

samspade
13-03-2004, 04:09 PM
Just for the record seeing there is no cross table here,
Solomon played
Peter Wolff,
Angelo TSAGARAKIS,
Lee JONES,
Doug HAMILTON 8th seed,
Simon RUTHERFORD 6th seed,
Peter FROEHLICH 2nd seed,
Mirko RUJEVIC 7th seed, [...]

Scott
http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfbt.htm will give anyone interested the crosstable

ursogr8
13-03-2004, 06:08 PM
I personally would use accelerated pairings with this field and this many players, effectively removing junk round 1, although acceleration produces a more bunched and hence randomised midfield in return for better testing the winners.

A winner on 6.5/7 will generally be far more deserving than runners-up on 6/7 who didn't meet that winner. However second place is a bit of a lottery in such cases.


Kevin

Did you mean acceleration for all rounds of the tournament? Or for just 2 or 3 rounds?

starter

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2004, 08:36 PM
Did you mean acceleration for all rounds of the tournament? Or for just 2 or 3 rounds?

Fixed 2 or 3 round accelerations are a bit silly because in a large enough field a few bottom-halfers will still get to 2/2 or even 3/3 in an accelerated draw and then if you stop the acceleration they get sent to board 1. I did some simulations with these and found that was a quite common outcome - remember that in round 2 of an accelerated you typically have the top eighth playing the second eighth and round 3 is the top sixteenth] playing the second sixteenth. Lots of draw potential there. If someone from the bottom half is still 100% after 4 rounds in a 6 rounder or 5 rounds in a 7 rounder they probably deserve to be there and it's no problem if they play the top-half leader next.

The ideal accelerated system is open-ended but with at least 2 rounds of normal swiss at the end. Once everyone from the bottom half of the field is no longer on 100% (this may happen in round 2 if no upsets) you can stop the acceleration at that point. So for a 7 rounder the acceleration should be for 2-5 rounds depending on the fate of the lower half.

I would not use SP's accelerated pairings system though - the way it works is not standard. I'd do it manually or using another pairings program (if available). I guess for this many players a manual accelerated draw is impractical.

ursogr8
13-03-2004, 09:34 PM
Fixed 2 or 3 round accelerations are a bit silly because in a large enough field a few bottom-halfers will still get to 2/2 or even 3/3 in an accelerated draw and then if you stop the acceleration they get sent to board 1. I did some simulations with these and found that was a quite common outcome - remember that in round 2 of an accelerated you typically have the top eighth playing the second eighth and round 3 is the top sixteenth] playing the second sixteenth. Lots of draw potential there. If someone from the bottom half is still 100% after 4 rounds in a 6 rounder or 5 rounds in a 7 rounder they probably deserve to be there and it's no problem if they play the top-half leader next.

The ideal accelerated system is open-ended but with at least 2 rounds of normal swiss at the end. Once everyone from the bottom half of the field is no longer on 100% (this may happen in round 2 if no upsets) you can stop the acceleration at that point. So for a 7 rounder the acceleration should be for 2-5 rounds depending on the fate of the lower half.

I would not use SP's accelerated pairings system though - the way it works is not standard. I'd do it manually or using another pairings program (if available). I guess for this many players a manual accelerated draw is impractical.

Kevin

Do you have cross-tables of a 7 round SWISS that had the acceleration taken off at round 5?

starter

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2004, 09:49 PM
Do you have cross-tables of a 7 round SWISS that had the acceleration taken off at round 5?

No, on the few occassions when I've used acceleration it has never been necessary to keep it going that long.

In an accelerated swiss, round 1 is first quarter vs second quarter and third quarter vs fourth quarter. Then in round 2 the bottom half winners are paired with top-half non-winners, which means that to get 2/2 a bottom half player must defeat someone at least a quarter of the field above them. If they do this in round 3 they will be playing another top half player. As our events don't get more than low-30s player numbers, the bottom half are always off 100% after three rounds. Once there are no bottom half players left on 100% there is not much point in still accelerating.

Bas
14-03-2004, 10:29 AM
Just for the record and in reply to Jeoffrey's initial comments:
The Ballarat Begonia had 94 entrees in 1996, when he finished equal second without playing the top. A bit of a freak result/draw as he was seeded 31st and won against the 18th seed in the last round!
In 1999, when he jointly won the tournament we had 90 players. Ironically, he beat Rujevic in the last round (interesting to compare with this year's situation?).
Consider the numbers of participants over the years and it is hard to determine (at least to me..) what the cut-off number for an accelerated draw should be.

Garvinator
14-03-2004, 10:32 AM
Just for the record and in reply to Jeoffrey's initial comments:
The Ballarat Begonia had 94 entrees in 1996, when he finished equal second without playing the top. A bit of a freak result/draw as he was seeded 31st and won against the 18th seed in the last round!
In 1999, when he jointly won the tournament we had 90 players. Ironically, he beat Rujevic in the last round (interesting to compare with this year's situation?).
Consider the numbers of participants over the years and it is hard to determine (at least to me..) what the cut-off number for an accelerated draw should be.
in my opinion the cut off number for a 7 round draw should be 64.

Bas
14-03-2004, 02:28 PM
ggrayggray, please explain. Why 64 entrees as a cut-off for 7 rounds? I am no specialist on the Swiss pairing system, but I would say that 2x2x2x2x2x2x2 (7 times 2)=128.The (Swiss) statistician should start worrying when more than 128 players enter a 7-round tournament, shouldn't he?

Garvinator
14-03-2004, 06:09 PM
ggrayggray, please explain. Why 64 entrees as a cut-off for 7 rounds? I am no specialist on the Swiss pairing system, but I would say that 2x2x2x2x2x2x2 (7 times 2)=128.The (Swiss) statistician should start worrying when more than 128 players enter a 7-round tournament, shouldn't he?
the main reasoning to me would be that if two players were to go through the first six rounds undefeated in a seven round (128 player) draw, then those two players could agree a quick draw in the last round and split the prizemoney. If entries were limited to 64, then this pairing would occur in round six, so the two players would be more likely to play on for a win as they have another round to come.

Garvinator
17-03-2004, 09:13 AM
couldnt find the rules section for this question, so i thought here would be appropriate.

I have seen in the acf newsletter that a survey was handed out at ballarat asking about what should the penalty be for mobile phone going off in the playing hall?

Bill, isnt this question pointless because fide have stated the automatic penalty of loss of game? From my understanding of previous posts on here, this is not a rule that the arbiter has any choice about regarding penalty.

samspade
17-03-2004, 09:32 AM
couldnt find the rules section for this question, so i thought here would be appropriate.

I have seen in the acf newsletter that a survey was handed out at ballarat asking about what should the penalty be for mobile phone going off in the playing hall?

Bill, isnt this question pointless because fide have stated the automatic penalty of loss of game? From my understanding of previous posts on here, this is not a rule that the arbiter has any choice about regarding penalty.
arbiters can do anything they want:owned:

Garvinator
17-03-2004, 09:36 AM
arbiters can do anything they want:owned:

i dont know if your post is meant to be a joke or not, but arbiters cannot do anything they want, some rules they can make variable decisions on, some rules they have no option but to enforce a particular penalty. from what has been said on here in the past by bill gletsos.
The mobile phone penalty of loss of game is one of those rules that the arbiter has no option but to enforce the penalty of loss of game.

I really wish i could find the actual thread where this was debated :doh:

Alan Shore
17-03-2004, 09:50 AM
I liked Roly Eime's stance on mobiles:

-If a player's phone goes off during the game, he forfeits that game
-If a spectator's phone goes off, he's ejected from the playing hall
-If an arbiter's phone goes off, it's toughest penalty of all, worse than having the phone thrown in a bucket of water.. he is forced to play in the tournament! :clap:

Garvinator
17-03-2004, 09:53 AM
I liked Roly Eime's stance on mobiles:

-If a player's phone goes off during the game, he forfeits that game
-If a spectator's phone goes off, he's ejected from the playing hall
-If an arbiter's phone goes off, it's toughest penalty of all, worse than having the phone thrown in a bucket of water.. he is forced to play in the tournament! :clap:
and the arbiter has to play the top seed first to :lol:

Bas
17-03-2004, 11:13 AM
I have now updated our (Ballarat) website (www.auschess.org.au/ballarat/bccindex.htm) with the latest on the Ballarat Begonia Tournament e.g. results, a report (was also published in the ACF Bulletin and ChessVic Newsletter), a selection of games, photos and a newspaper report.
More games and reports are likely to be added as soon as possible.....

Now that 'it' mostly is over... Looking forward to play in the Doeberl as a player only..

Garvinator
18-03-2004, 10:17 AM
it has now been two days since i posted regarding my concerns about the survey about mobile phone rule at ballarat and the survey that was being passed around there about this rule.

I would expect that two days is plenty of time to get a decent response from the acf council regarding this matter. I have received no reply. I have asked a legitimate and serious question regarding this matter. Do i have to email the acf council personally to get a reply?

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2004, 12:26 PM
it has now been two days since i posted regarding my concerns about the survey about mobile phone rule at ballarat and the survey that was being passed around there about this rule.

I would expect that two days is plenty of time to get a decent response from the acf council regarding this matter. I have received no reply. I have asked a legitimate and serious question regarding this matter. Do i have to email the acf council personally to get a reply?
Dont start acting like a goose gg. ;)
This was discussed at length and answered in another thread.
However for those with poor memories or BB search skills, I'll repeat it.
We play under the FIDE rules.
The FIDE Rules Commission has ruled that if a players mobile phone rings during his game he immediately loses the game, no ands ifs or buts.
The penalty is no longer at the discretion of the Arbiter.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2004, 01:56 PM
ggrayggray, please explain. Why 64 entrees as a cut-off for 7 rounds? I am no specialist on the Swiss pairing system, but I would say that 2x2x2x2x2x2x2 (7 times 2)=128.The (Swiss) statistician should start worrying when more than 128 players enter a 7-round tournament, shouldn't he?

There are a wide range of theories on how many rounds you "need" for a Swiss. Often people assert these theories and defend them to the hilt as if they are higher mathematics. The most common are:

(i) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout.

(ii) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout, plus two.

(iii) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout to determine the winner, plus two for each additional place.

(The idea is that you can artificially "add" one round to the number you actually have if you use acceleration.)

There is actually no sound mathematical basis for any of these theories at all. (i) is fine if you expect every key game to have a result but in practice there are lots of draws and an outright leader frequently emerges before the number of rounds required for a knockout. (ii) presumably assumes that the leaders will meet after winning all their games and then need a couple of rounds left over to reduce their incentive to split the cash. However draws and surprise leaders often get in the way of this, either delaying or accelerating the meeting of the best two players.

Deciding whether to use acceleration isn't always just a matter of how many rounds and how many players. I often take how big a mismatch the first round will be into account. A round full of 800+ point mismatches is futile and means that it will take a long time to start generating competitive contests.

Garvinator
18-03-2004, 02:52 PM
Dont start acting like a goose gg. ;)
This was discussed at length and answered in another thread.
However for those with poor memories or BB search skills, I'll repeat it.
We play under the FIDE rules.
The FIDE Rules Commission has ruled that if a players mobile phone rings during his game he immediately loses the game, no ands ifs or buts.
The penalty is no longer at the discretion of the Arbiter.
bill, i was saying exactly what you have said here. I was asking why is ballarat bothering to run a survey on the mobile fone subject when under fide rules, the arbiter only has one decision to make, loss of game. It is not a decision for debate. the penalty is automatic.

I was wanting to know from bas also why is ballarat running a survey on this matter? thank you bill for finally answering the question i asked and confirming what i was saying earlier :lol:

arosar
18-03-2004, 03:16 PM
gg...you're far too intimidated or just too nice or the real saint that you often make yourself out to be. Bill's being rude to you and you let him get away with it. Bill's one of the oldest sofas in the ACF house. Even he needs a good whack every now and then. He gets on a bit hence he gets sucked in the easiest. Anyways mate, check this out: http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=320 and see point 6. So the question is, are Commission rulings immediately in force?

AR

Ian Rout
18-03-2004, 03:38 PM
There are a wide range of theories on how many rounds you "need" for a Swiss. Often people assert these theories and defend them to the hilt as if they are higher mathematics. The most common are:

(i) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout.

(ii) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout, plus two.

(iii) You need the number of rounds required for a knockout to determine the winner, plus two for each additional place.

(The idea is that you can artificially "add" one round to the number you actually have if you use acceleration.)

There is actually no sound mathematical basis for any of these theories at all. (i) is fine if you expect every key game to have a result but in practice there are lots of draws and an outright leader frequently emerges before the number of rounds required for a knockout. (ii) presumably assumes that the leaders will meet after winning all their games and then need a couple of rounds left over to reduce their incentive to split the cash. However draws and surprise leaders often get in the way of this, either delaying or accelerating the meeting of the best two players.

Deciding whether to use acceleration isn't always just a matter of how many rounds and how many players. I often take how big a mismatch the first round will be into account. A round full of 800+ point mismatches is futile and means that it will take a long time to start generating competitive contests.

I think the argument for (ii) is more that, to borrow one of my favourite quotes "chess is not tennis" (A. Karpov) so a knockout, or something that simulates it, is not really appropriate. You can be knocked out with one bad move, or even zero bad moves, especially in Black games. Adding extra rounds beyond the minimum mathematically necessary requires the leader to demonstrate more sustained skill; they have to stay there, not just get there. How often do we see players go into at least the joint lead early on but die when the heat goes on? For this reason Corus was not run as a four-round Swiss or Linares a three-rounder.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2004, 03:40 PM
gg...you're far too intimidated or just too nice or the real saint that you often make yourself out to be. Bill's being rude to you and you let him get away with it. Bill's one of the oldest sofas in the ACF house. Even he needs a good whack every now and then. He gets on a bit hence he gets sucked in the easiest.
Don't be a goose AR.
I was being nice to gg thats why i put a ;) on my first sentence to him.


Anyways mate, check this out: http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=320 and see point 6. So the question is, are Commission rulings immediately in force?
No, but they do take immediate effect once ratified by a FIDE Congress. These were at the 74th FIDE Congress last October/November in Greece.

Garvinator
18-03-2004, 11:56 PM
Posted by bill

Dont start acting like a goose gg ;) .
This was discussed at length and answered in another thread.
However for those with poor memories or BB search skills, I'll repeat it.
We play under the FIDE rules.
The FIDE Rules Commission has ruled that if a players mobile phone rings during his game he immediately loses the game, no ands ifs or buts.
The penalty is no longer at the discretion of the Arbiter.

posted by arosar

gg...you're far too intimidated or just too nice or the real saint that you often make yourself out to be. Bill's being rude to you and you let him get away with it. Bill's one of the oldest sofas in the ACF house. Even he needs a good whack every now and then. He gets on a bit hence he gets sucked in the easiest. Anyways mate, check this out: http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=320 and see point 6. So the question is, are Commission rulings immediately in force?

posted by bill again

Don't be a goose AR.
I was being nice to gg thats why i put a on my first sentence to him.

Did that just so we now where we are. first of all, thanks arosar for giving me a chance keep increasing my post count replying to stuff that i thought was quite funny actually :clap: .
Arosar, I am not scared in the least of bill. I respect his opinion most of the time, but if i disagree with something he has said and i think i know what im talking about ;) then i say so. If you need an example of this, go back to the thread where i criticised the current delegate structure of the acf.

even if bill was being critical of me and calling me a goose, i think i would have only made quarter goose category :whistle: as i had a fair point(i thought so anyway) and there has been a lot more trash delivered on here by everyone that is far worse that my questions regarding ballarat and the mobile fone survey :doh: At least then i wouldve broken my duck and i would get on with goose business :p

I am not a saint, the pope hasnt made me one, yet :eek:

ursogr8
21-03-2004, 08:40 AM
Looking through the results at Ballarat I came to a rather disturbing discovery - I noticed that none of the three people on 6/7 played either Solomon or another person who got 6/7! Now I'm not having a go at these players - obviously they can't help who they're paired against - but from a competitive point of view I find it very unsatisfactory. I don't have access to the records from past Ballarat tournaments, but I can think of a couple of other instances where this has happened: in 1996 I got 6/7 at Ballarat equal second with Kontorovich while Johansen came first with 6.5/7 - I didn't play Kontorovich or Johansen. In 1999 I got 6/7 equal first with Chapman and Johansen - I didn't play Chapman or Johansen. As I've said I don't have full access to the tournament records but there you go I've just named 5 recentish instances where someone has got 6/7 without playing anyone above them or equal with them. Presumably the (CG fuelled?) increase in numbers only makes this sort of thing more likely to happen.

I'm a big fan of the accelerated system they have at Box Hill whereby the field is split into two groups - it cuts down a lot on junk pairings and the yo-yo between high and low rated players that many competitors experience in so-called 'Monster Swisses'. It also makes the rating prizes much more meaningful because you're generally playing only against people from your own rating group. Starter, do you think it'd be feasible to use the Box Hill approach at Ballarat? Would it be feasible to have 3 groups at a big tournament like Ballarat (as opposed to the 2 at Box Hill)?

PS: The other way of looking at this is to say that Solo came first without playing any of the people who came second! It just seems wrong to me.

All,
Rounds 1 to 7 of the 2004 Begonia/Ballarat week-ender have a calculated mean absolute deviation of rating differences, of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
764, 506, 419, 348, 344, 273, 302

By my observation round 1 was hugely uncompetitive and probably a waste of everyone's time. The average ratings difference was 764; that's right, you read correctly. The average is 764, not the maximum.
And as you would expect the results were really predictable. There was a draw on board 14 and a draw on board 28 (credit BroadZ), and I fell asleep looking for any other results against the rating expectation.

Round 2 was beyond the metric value that I judge to be a satisfactory competitive round. In my experience once the metric gets above 450 then a high % of the games have predicatable outcome.

Does any of this matter?
I spoke to three parents on Friday night; they had gone to Ballarat 2003, but skipped Ballarat 2004. Their offspring are rated around 1100 and are keen as mustard to play chess. And the reason for missing the 2004-tournament was that the kids felt they had too many impossible games (in 2003) as measured by rating differences. Food for thought.

BTW, Ballarat still had a hugely successful turnout. Well done Bas and Kevin and guys.

starter

jeffrei
21-03-2004, 10:13 AM
,
And as you would expect the results were really predictable. There was a draw on board 14 and a draw on board 28 (credit BroadZ), and I fell asleep looking for any other results against the rating expectation.

A minor point, but also Devrim van Dijk (1560) drew with Joel McDonald (2100) in round one. I agree with your general argument, though. I should also say to the Ballarat organisers that no one here is insulting your tournament, which is certainly one of the best in Australia. And I understand why there might be a reluctance to try new ideas - certainly when I came to Box Hill a few years ago the accelerated system seemed weird...but over time I came to realise how superior it is for tournaments with large fields.

ursogr8
21-03-2004, 07:21 PM
A minor point, but also Devrim van Dijk (1560) drew with Joel McDonald (2100) in round one. I agree with your general argument, though. I should also say to the Ballarat organisers that no one here is insulting your tournament, which is certainly one of the best in Australia. And I understand why there might be a reluctance to try new ideas - certainly when I came to Box Hill a few years ago the accelerated system seemed weird...but over time I came to realise how superior it is for tournaments with large fields.

hey Geoff,
I recognized Devrim (see reference to board 14) but given he does not have a handle here (whereas BroadZ does), I did not detail.

And I thought I was at pains not to criticize Ballarat (see my last para.); they do a beaut job.

starter

ursogr8
21-03-2004, 07:36 PM
in my opinion the cut off number for a 7 round draw should be 64.
gg

Do you want to change your opinion in view of the demonstration in post #49 that rounds 1 and 2 served little purpose as designed.
7 rounds would quite sufficient if these first two rounds were not wasted.

starter

Garvinator
21-03-2004, 08:47 PM
gg

Do you want to change your opinion in view of the demonstration in post #49 that rounds 1 and 2 served little purpose as designed.
7 rounds would quite sufficient if these first two rounds were not wasted.

starter

nope, i was just commenting about the amount of rounds required using the pure form of the swiss system. I was not commenting about the accelerated version ;)

I do have a question about the accelerated version with only one division, like if the accelerated version was used in the 118 player field of ballarat. Would the mismatch games be just delayed to later rounds. I am basically wondering if those early games would just appear later in the tournament. But if those games were spread roughly evenly in each of the rounds, they may not appear on the radar as much as a first round full of mismatches. :hmm:

ursogr8
21-03-2004, 10:23 PM
nope, i was just commenting about the amount of rounds required using the pure form of the swiss system. I was not commenting about the accelerated version ;)

I do have a question about the accelerated version with only one division, like if the accelerated version was used in the 118 player field of ballarat. Would the mismatch games be just delayed to later rounds. I am basically wondering if those early games would just appear later in the tournament. But if those games were spread roughly evenly in each of the rounds, they may not appear on the radar as much as a first round full of mismatches. :hmm:

Now gg, your post makes me feel a little exasperated.
We have a metric that is measuring (effectively) whether the mismatches are occurring, and in which round they are congregating. Go back to the Begonia/Ballarat figures and compare with the Box Hill Autumn Cup figures; you will see that all rounds of the Box Hill event are much, much more competitive. No, we do not hide any mismatches generally in later rounds. I thought I had demonstrated that point many months ago.

When you become convinced of this point please return to the question I asked of you; have you changed your opinion re 7 rounds.

starter

PS Maybe I have done you a dis-service. When you said 'the accelerated version with only one division' what exactly did you mean?

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2004, 01:55 AM
I think the argument for (ii) is more that, to borrow one of my favourite quotes "chess is not tennis" (A. Karpov) so a knockout, or something that simulates it, is not really appropriate.

Yup. But having agreed with this there is no reason why two specifically should be the number of extra rounds.

Garvinator
22-03-2004, 01:37 PM
PS Maybe I have done you a dis-service. When you said 'the accelerated version with only one division' what exactly did you mean?
means all the players are in one monster swiss tournament, unlike box hill which has listed as two divisions.

Ian Rout
22-03-2004, 02:43 PM
Yup. But having agreed with this there is no reason why two specifically should be the number of extra rounds.
Agree. Any number greater than zero the same applies.

I suppose a case could be made that if there are too many rounds a player can trawl along below the top, getting easier games every round, and just break through at the end. However it would probably be dependent on the exact size and composition of the event where that counterpoint cuts in.

Garvinator
22-03-2004, 06:04 PM
Agree. Any number greater than zero the same applies.

I suppose a case could be made that if there are too many rounds a player can trawl along below the top, getting easier games every round, and just break through at the end. However it would probably be dependent on the exact size and composition of the event where that counterpoint cuts in.
this situation is very possible, but that player would most likely meet the front runners at the end of the tournament. the early leaders would have played each other by this time and so at the end of the tournament, the early leaders would be playing the lesser performed players, wouldnt they?

So to me the net effect of 1) a player trawling through the mid field early on, to then play the front runners at the end of the tournament- is the same as 2) players taking an early lead, then playing all the other front runners, then playing the mid fielders in the last couple of rounds.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 01:23 AM
I suppose a case could be made that if there are too many rounds a player can trawl along below the top, getting easier games every round, and just break through at the end. However it would probably be dependent on the exact size and composition of the event where that counterpoint cuts in.

I don't think that's too great a problem because in really long events the trawler runs too much risk of the leaders clearing out by a large margin (if he doesn't get fed to them first). What is an issue is that where the # of rounds is too large for the field, the leaders start going through much weaker players and there can be a big luck element if one leader draws a midfielder in the final round while the other leader draws someone near the pointy end. Certainly I don't like swisses where the number of rounds is more than half the number of players (unless I win them of course).

Garvinator
13-04-2004, 02:15 PM
i was hoping someone who has the swiss perfect files for ballarat and dubbo could send them to me at either ggrayggray@hotmail.com or garvingray@optusnet.com.au, thanks. I already have doeberl, thanks shaun :)