PDA

View Full Version : Rogers article in SUnday Herald about Zonals



chesslover
06-04-2004, 10:35 PM
In sundays Sun Hearld article Rogers said that Johansen would be representing Australia in the World Champ KO in Libya

He then went on to state that it was bad that Australia was part of the Oceania Zonals and not the SE Asia Zonals

Is that right????? :confused:

If being part of SE Asia means that the best Australian will not get an automatic qualifier to the World Champs, then it is a good thing that we are part of the weaker Oceania. That way we get an automativ qualifier

Generally in world terms Australia's chess standing and Soccer standing are roughly the same. We are around 50 in world chess and throughout the 80s and most of 90s we were around 50 in world soccer. The goal of world soccer is to make the top 20 in the world.

If you look at Soccer the move to move us to a tougher qualifier was greeted with shock and outrage. Instead of the Ocenaia qualifier in soccer going straight to the world cup, we now have yo play the 5th placed team from South America in addition to qualifying. This lack of qualification succes in the Soccer World Cup is one of the reasons why Soccer is in such a bad state here.

If we are in the SE Asia Zonal in chess it will be much tougher for Aussies to qualify compared to now, where we dominate the Oceania chess scene.

eclectic
06-04-2004, 10:48 PM
1. Merge the two zones.

2. There would be an initial setback however in the long run it would perhaps give our players better chances of obtaining GM or IM norms (or titles?) in a "merged" zonal.

3. If we can graft ourselves onto the emerging Asian chess circuit then that saves us travelling to Europe or America to obtain norms or titles - outcomes which we, in comparison to the leading chess nations due to to our geographic isolation, find difficult to obtain.

eclectic

chesslover
06-04-2004, 10:57 PM
1. Merge the two zones.

2. There would be an initial setback however in the long run it would perhaps give our players better chances of obtaining GM or IM norms (or titles?) in a "merged" zonal.

3. If we can graft ourselves onto the emerging Asian chess circuit then that saves us travelling to Europe or America to obtain norms or titles - outcomes which we, in comparison to the leading chess nations due to to our geographic isolation, find difficult to obtain.

eclectic

but having to go through the SE Asia Zonal will be much harder for our players. And even in the future it will be harder however much we improve, for the competition is much tougher

a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If we are part of Oceania barring the odd New Zealand upset, we should pretty much dominate and have an easier qualfying run

eclectic
06-04-2004, 11:04 PM
but having to go through the SE Asia Zonal will be much harder for our players. And even in the future it will be harder however much we improve, for the competition is much tougher

If we want to have more Australian players becoming GM's etc then we're going to have to face that tough competition and be thoroughly prepared for it.

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2004, 12:51 AM
I tend to agree with Ian Rogers actually.

Having our own zonal means a virtually guaranteed knockout place for someone from Australia, well, nine times out of ten anyway. Which means that Australia's practically guaranteed a place in this 128-player KO event.

Australia's playing strength does not really justify this ranking. Rogers himself is the only player in the zone who is close to (at times in) the world's top 128, and he tends not to compete in these events anyway.

I just can't see what having an event where we can send a sacrificial lamb to be KOd in round 1 really does for Australian chess. (At least this has been the past experience, hopefully Darryl can pull an upset or at least take his opponent into overtime). It would be better if our players had to earn their place by beating stronger opposition so that an Australian even making the knockout became a significant and noteworthy acheivement.

CL, your arguments are parochial. You're just pushing the "oh this system is good for us because we qualify easily" line. I don't think the soccer analogy is valid because the Soccer World Cup is so much more elite than the FIDE knockout, and because once you get into the World Cup you get to play matches against a few different teams not just one opponent.

And, of course, you all know my feelings about the FIDE knockout even being considered a world championship at all. :evil:

Alan Shore
07-04-2004, 01:07 AM
I will agree with Ian Rogers if it's a proposed merger - after all, Australia really *is* Oceania, so if the two zones were merged then I would be all for it, mostly for what reasons Kevin alluded to, the added competition and the chance for our top players to play among stronger opposition. It's all very well being a big fish in a small pond but there's a wider world out there for the taking.

arosar
07-04-2004, 09:43 AM
Yes, I also agree with the argument to merge back with the stronger zone. The current Australian situation is pathetic. Our boys have to face tough opposition - the best in our region.

AR

m-cell
07-04-2004, 04:56 PM
the separate zonal did boost activity in the zone however.
look at fiji after the zonal. they've had a few international tournaments since
plus more FIDE-rated players. similarly with png with the activity there.

Oepty
07-04-2004, 05:08 PM
I think the Oceania Zonal, while good in the short term for players who have gained titles, is not really that good an idea. This would not rule out Australian players. If you look at some of the players who qualified from Asia you see that Dableo qualified through winnning Zonal 3.2a and Kadhi who gained place from the Asian Championships. Both these players are certainly weaker than Johansen and most probably than most of our IMs. Having said this some of the other zones that have qualified players are not much stronger than Oceania and if Rogers played probably not stronger at all.
Scott

Ian Rout
07-04-2004, 05:26 PM
The other side to the argument that Australia gets a guaranteed place is that it is guaranteed only getting that one and no more. If the standard at the top improves we need to wait for FIDE to legislate for another place. And if a decent GM moves to NZ then Aust no longer has a place.

Oepty
07-04-2004, 05:39 PM
Ian, They might need a GM. I think players like Kushlako, Dive and Bjelobrk are capable of winning zonals and Puchen Wang looks like he is going to be a very strong player as well in a few years as well.
Scott

Brian_Jones
08-04-2004, 08:57 AM
Scott, you are overrating the strength of the Australian/NZ players. Asian countries such as Philippines and Indonesia have many more strong up and coming players. Ronald Dableo is a strong 2426 and rising. The Philippines also have others such as IM Mark Paragua at 2529! These players are much more active than our players. Oceania players should compete in both Asia and Oceania. Also, it is time we hosted an Asian tournament again! Maybe approach government to support annual matches against these countries.
Flying Jetsar Asia of course!

Trent Parker
08-04-2004, 03:11 PM
I think the issue is, with chess and soccer, the quality of opposition.
IMHO the more a chessplayer plays against higher rated opponents the better a player will be and the more chance that that player has to go to the next level or round.

As in soccer the merging of the two zones (oceania and asia) would be best for australia. Sure we may not receive direct positions but the standard of our chess players will improve IMHO.

Oepty
08-04-2004, 03:26 PM
Hello Brian. When I was talking about NZL players I was talking about the possibly winning a 3.2b Zonal, not a bigger zonal. Quite frankly I would be surprised if a NZL made the world championships in the near future. Wang probably has the talent to get there sometime in the future but might struggle to play enough as you say being in NZL. Like Australian juniors he will need to go overseas for quite a while to get the best he can out of himself.

I would back Johansen to beat Dableo although I admit it is not certain. Johansen is definitely stronger that Kadhi would qualified through the Asian Championships. I am not saying an Australian would definitely qualify every time, just that they could qualify sometimes. As for Paragua, well I agree he is looking very strong and is stronger than Johansen.

Scott

m-cell
09-04-2004, 01:20 PM
in my mind, having our own zone is an opportunity for growth.
we need more strong quality tournaments in the region not less.
if we merge with 3.2b we could lose this potential (and zonal tournament).
i'm sure only a few strong players (johansen, etc.) would go to a zonal
in ho chi minh city or manila.

i agree stronger competition is a plus and a good argument to merge.
however why not build on what has been built so far.
eg. maybe have a tournament/match between the zones eg. johansen-dableo or tournament similar to SEA Ch for south asia, etc.

btw. dableo beat alot of strong gm's (eg. torre, antonio, paragua, wu) to win 3.2b and performed at 2611 for that tournament.

chesslover
12-04-2004, 11:16 PM
in my mind, having our own zone is an opportunity for growth.
we need more strong quality tournaments in the region not less.
if we merge with 3.2b we could lose this potential (and zonal tournament).
i'm sure only a few strong players (johansen, etc.) would go to a zonal
in ho chi minh city or manila.


thank you

that is what I have been saying mate

the saying a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush is apt here. Why give up an excellent chance of playing in the world champs just so that you can play in asia and have far far fewer chance of entering. How many australians will go to Manila or other asian cities to even be involved in a zonal??????

If you want competition have playoffs between the ocenia winner and the asians who qualify as a warmup before the world champs start. Dont give up a coveted automatic qualifier on some idea that this will improve australian chess

Soccer will kill for the automatic entry right that the winner of our zonal has. but most of us think that it will be better to give up the automatic right for Oceania and play and not qualify in an SE Asia Zonal????? :confused: :confused:

Trent Parker
13-04-2004, 07:56 AM
in my mind, having our own zone is an opportunity for growth.
we need more strong quality tournaments in the region not less.
if we merge with 3.2b we could lose this potential (and zonal tournament).
i'm sure only a few strong players (johansen, etc.) would go to a zonal
in ho chi minh city or manila.

M-CELL how would we get "more strong quality tournaments in the region" when we are in our padded little group on our own? If anything It would be better for Australia because it would give more asian players the incentive to come to Australia. IMHO What other countries other than Australia and NZ have an effect on the Oceania zone? How can this grow when it is most probably a group of players who regularly play against each other.


i'm sure only a few strong players (johansen, etc.) would go to a zonal in ho chi minh city or manila
Provide incentives for players to go play in Ho chi minh or Manilla.
Besides Is it not a qualification series for the world championships? shouldn't only Gm and perhaps IM equivalents, play in this? (maybe strong fide masters too?)


eg. maybe have a tournament/match between the zones eg. johansen-dableo or tournament similar to SEA Ch for south asia, etc.

Where is the incentive? There is no incentive for players from zone 3.2a to play a tornament/match with Oceania. Oceania in relative terms of numbers are small compared to other se asian countries. And where would the tournament be held? Manilla? Ho Chi MInh? Oceania (yeah right)?

IMHO Before australia and oceania should have a zone for itself we should have lots more quality players like they do in asia before we should claim a zone for ourselves.

Lucena
15-04-2004, 02:03 PM
You don't have to have a long neck to be a...........


Giraffe! Giraffe! :D

Lucena
15-04-2004, 02:06 PM
speaking of zonals, what do we know about the next zonal? I heard it was in New Zealand. By the way, did I hear correctly that they tightened up the requirements for titles in zonals? Bill?

Lucena
15-04-2004, 02:13 PM
speaking of zonals, what do we know about the next zonal? I heard it was in New Zealand. By the way, did I hear correctly that they tightened up the requirements for titles in zonals? Bill?

checked fide website, says april 2005, auckland. Well I'm keen to go.

jase
15-04-2004, 02:54 PM
Geez Gareth you don't half mind a chat with yourself.

Perhaps instead of the Black & White Oceania v SE Asia, we could examine the principles of the split in our zone.

Perhaps both views have some foundation, and could be incorporated into a better model. The valid criticism of the current set-up is that Oceania is too weak. Likewise it's valid to argue that re-attaching ourselves to SE Asia would move us from a zonal that is too easy to a zonal that is bloody difficult. And would we be able to hang on to our automatic spot in the World Championships? Unclear.

I think there is some merit in two genuine zones [rather than the serious one and Mickey Mouse one we have presently]. Currently we have:

Zone 3.2a Zone 3.2b
Brunei Australia
Hong Kong New Zealand
Indonesia Fiji
Japan PNG
Korea
Macau
Malaysia
Mongolia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

A fairer distribution might achieve many of the aims aired on this thread. Georgraphically, Indonesia, Brunei, The Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia are the closest countries to Oceania.

These nations might have some interest in forming agreater Oceania zone, as it would enhance their qualification chances. Under the current format, Oceania gets 1 Men's and 1 Women's qualification spot. SE Asia gets 2 Men's and 1 Women's spot. So we can't provide for the stronger nations without a realignment of this arrangement. However we could incorporate Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia, and leave the qualifications at the status quo. Incorporating either Indonesia [the close nation] or the Philippines might require negotiating another World Champs spot. A fairer split of the zones could look like this:

Zone 3.2a Zone 3.2b
Philippines Australia
Hong Kong New Zealand
Vietnam Fiji
Japan PNG
Korea Brunei
Macau Indonesia
Thailand Singapore
Mongolia Malaysia
Myanmar

chesslover
15-04-2004, 11:14 PM
Perhaps instead of the Black & White Oceania v SE Asia, we could examine the principles of the split in our zone.

Perhaps both views have some foundation, and could be incorporated into a better model. The valid criticism of the current set-up is that Oceania is too weak. Likewise it's valid to argue that re-attaching ourselves to SE Asia would move us from a zonal that is too easy to a zonal that is bloody difficult. And would we be able to hang on to our automatic spot in the World Championships? Unclear.

I think there is some merit in two genuine zones [rather than the serious one and Mickey Mouse one we have presently]. Currently we have:

A fairer split of the zones could look like this:

Zone 3.2a Zone 3.2b
Philippines Australia
Hong Kong New Zealand
Vietnam Fiji
Japan PNG
Korea Brunei
Macau Indonesia
Thailand Singapore
Mongolia Malaysia
Myanmar

Jase mate

I am someone who belives in winning at all costs and I am happy with Australia getting a spot in the zonals via the easier route. We have a bird in the hand. We have what soccer would kill for - an automatic spot in the number 1 chess tournament in the world - just by winning our zonal

the only problem will arise if a strong GM moves to NZ which will then leave us with the worst of two worlds. A weak zonal where we cannot develop and not even an automatic spot to soothe that :(

Your idea is hence a good one :clap: a compromise that makes it a competitive without making it too hard :clap:

thou has clearly wisdom of solomon displayed with this thy act

Trent Parker
15-04-2004, 11:27 PM
Geez Gareth you don't half mind a chat with yourself.

Perhaps instead of the Black & White Oceania v SE Asia, we could examine the principles of the split in our zone.

Perhaps both views have some foundation, and could be incorporated into a better model. The valid criticism of the current set-up is that Oceania is too weak. Likewise it's valid to argue that re-attaching ourselves to SE Asia would move us from a zonal that is too easy to a zonal that is bloody difficult. And would we be able to hang on to our automatic spot in the World Championships? Unclear.

I think there is some merit in two genuine zones [rather than the serious one and Mickey Mouse one we have presently]. Currently we have:

Zone 3.2a Zone 3.2b
Brunei Australia
Hong Kong New Zealand
Indonesia Fiji
Japan PNG
Korea
Macau
Malaysia
Mongolia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

A fairer distribution might achieve many of the aims aired on this thread. Georgraphically, Indonesia, Brunei, The Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia are the closest countries to Oceania.

These nations might have some interest in forming agreater Oceania zone, as it would enhance their qualification chances. Under the current format, Oceania gets 1 Men's and 1 Women's qualification spot. SE Asia gets 2 Men's and 1 Women's spot. So we can't provide for the stronger nations without a realignment of this arrangement. However we could incorporate Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia, and leave the qualifications at the status quo. Incorporating either Indonesia [the close nation] or the Philippines might require negotiating another World Champs spot. A fairer split of the zones could look like this:

Zone 3.2a Zone 3.2b
Philippines Australia
Hong Kong New Zealand
Vietnam Fiji
Japan PNG
Korea Brunei
Macau Indonesia
Thailand Singapore
Mongolia Malaysia
Myanmar

This would probably be the best way to go.

Trent Parker
15-04-2004, 11:38 PM
Giraffe! Giraffe! :D

Ummm bit off topic but No guess again. :D :lol: :rolleyes:

Garvinator
15-04-2004, 11:48 PM
Ummm bit off topic but No guess again. :D :lol: :rolleyes:
hmmm :hmm: maybe its a goose :whistle: :whistle:

Trent Parker
16-04-2004, 12:06 AM
hmmm :hmm: maybe its a goose :whistle: :whistle:

:lol: :owned: :whistle:

Lucena
16-04-2004, 12:33 PM
hmmm :hmm: maybe its a goose :whistle: :whistle:

oh drat I was so sure it was a giraffe :doh: :doh: :D

Rincewind
16-04-2004, 01:14 PM
oh drat I was so sure it was a giraffe :doh: :doh: :D

I was thinking beer.

Oh well, pass me another stubby! :drool:

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2004, 01:53 PM
Jase's suggestion makes sense to me. As for the original poll, cripes chesslover, what a belting you're getting on this one. It's got a bit better for you in the last few weeks now that a couple of stragglers have actually been found who will agree with you, but even so, 14-3? :rolleyes: Looks like the tribe has spoken ...

jase
16-04-2004, 02:00 PM
One problem, which I flagged, with a solution along the lines I've proposed, is that if you balance the zones, you want a balance of allocated places to the World Championships. Of the countries I slotted with us, only the Indonesians are strong.

The notion of a GM moving to NZ isn't a huge worry to me - we have GMs too!

Curious that it's Ian who is mooting a merging of the two zones, since Ian was a pivotal figure in the splitting of the zones a decade ago.

arosar
16-04-2004, 02:28 PM
Curious that it's Ian who is mooting a merging of the two zones, since Ian was a pivotal figure in the splitting of the zones a decade ago.

I heard stories that the Indos did to GM Rogers what the Ruskies did to Fischer. You know, they had easy games ending in draws, or their weaker players throwing games to their stronger ones. Apparently this really upset Rogers. Does any1 here know the truth behind all this? How was Rogers pivotal in Aus being thrown out? Was it due to our behaviour?

AR

m-cell
16-04-2004, 02:40 PM
reorganisig the zone structures would be great
but i suspect it would be very difficult to do.
(i would think indonesia would most likely want to remain in
their current zone).

the fact is that a separate zone is the current situation.
so i would think only a compelling argument would call this to change.

imho, the zonal serves a few purposes ie. 1. to find the best player in the region and 2. to increase activity to make 1 possible (no use have many IM's/GM's but are all inactive!).

junior chess is australia is growing at a rapid rate
so in 5 years time we can estimate a number of new IM's and hopefully GM's.
we would then want a separate zone to accomodate these new batch of strong players!

chesslover
16-04-2004, 07:21 PM
Jase's suggestion makes sense to me. As for the original poll, cripes chesslover, what a belting you're getting on this one. It's got a bit better for you in the last few weeks now that a couple of stragglers have actually been found who will agree with you, but even so, 14-3? :rolleyes: Looks like the tribe has spoken ...

it is 14-4 now, but so what?

the people in this BB may have chosen, but to what extent are they representive of australian chess opinion?????

Also some people are just idiots, who vote without knowing the facts. Others for sadistic pleasure tend to vote against the most stupidest and wrong option for a perverse kick. These are the loonies who in an election vote for the Free Marijuna Party or the Monster Raving Party :rolleyes:

If I asked a poll (which I will in non chess) asking people here do they think Tasmanians are inbred genetic freaks, a fair propertion will vote for it to get some psychotic perverse thrill. That is how stupid and silly some people who vote here are

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 07:33 PM
it is 14-4 now, but so what?

the people in this BB may have chosen, but to what extent are they representive of australian chess opinion?????

Also some people are just idiots, who vote without knowing the facts. Others for sadistic pleasure tend to vote against the most stupidest and wrong option for a perverse kick. These are the loonies who in an election vote for the Free Marijuna Party or the Monster Raving Party :rolleyes:

If I asked a poll (which I will in non chess) asking people here do they think Tasmanians are inbred genetic freaks, a fair propertion will vote for it to get some psychotic perverse thrill. That is how stupid and silly some people who vote here are
Of course CL it could be asked are you views ever representative of anything.
Based on your argument I could suggest that all the geese who voted the the same as you are the same dipsticks who vote for the Monster Raving Party. :hmm:
All the sane people voted opposite to you. :clap:

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2004, 07:42 PM
the people in this BB may have chosen, but to what extent are they representive of australian chess opinion?????

If you don't think they're representative of Australian chess opinion then why the hell did you ask them?

Walked into that one, didn't you?


Others for sadistic pleasure tend to vote against the most stupidest and wrong option for a perverse kick. These are the loonies who in an election vote for the Free Marijuna Party or the Monster Raving Party :rolleyes:

Yes, but these parties are found on the minority end of the vote. :hmm:

And what's sadistic or perverse about voting against the "most stupidest and wrong" option?

GG, time to get the gun and dogs, could be some game about here. :clap:

Lucena
16-04-2004, 11:50 PM
GG, time to get the gun and dogs, could be some game about here. :clap:
don't forget the quacking/honking horn thing that attracts the geese. This reminds me of a poem by Ogden Nash[the guy's hunting a duck not a goose but close enough]:
_________

The Hunter
by Odgen Nash

The hunter crouches in his blind
'Neath camouflage of every kind
And conjures up a quacking noise
To lend allure to his decoys
This grown-up man, with pluck and luck
Is hoping to outwit a duck.
______________
:D :D

PS I'm pretty sure that doesn't infringe copyright if it does I'm sure a responsible admin will delete it

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 11:56 PM
GG, time to get the gun and dogs, could be some game about here. :clap:
:hmm: not sure what to do here, i think on another thread cl is about to hang himself there, so i may have to operate on two fronts at the same time. The thread im looking at is where cl is now saying that bill is great (again :rolleyes: ) and cl says that bill shouldnt be criticised, but if my memory serves me correctly, cl was criticising bill recently ;)

What to do, what to do :lol: :whistle:

Ian_Rogers
17-04-2004, 12:53 AM
It is quite unfair for Jason to suggest that I was a pivotal figure in the splitting of the Asian zones "a decade ago".
The split happened in 1998, against my very strong objections. However our delegate was strongly urged by some of our players at the Elista Olympiad to support the proposal and it passed. (Note, Darryl and I were not competing in Elista.)
In fact Asia had been trying to offload Oceania from their zone for more than a decade prior to this happening, and in 1998 they finally found Australian and NZ representatives willing to countenance the proposal. We were given a four year opt-back-in-to Asia clause but failed to take it up by 2002.

Ian

jase
17-04-2004, 06:58 PM
Ian,

I have not suggested that you were an advocate for a split in our zone, as you have interpreted in your post.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 08:42 PM
PS I'm pretty sure that doesn't infringe copyright if it does I'm sure a responsible admin will delete it

Pretty sure copyright on that would have expired. Anyway, no-one sues over stuff like poems and song lyrics pasted on the web, where would they start?

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 08:45 PM
:hmm: not sure what to do here, i think on another thread cl is about to hang himself there, so i may have to operate on two fronts at the same time.

Sounds a lot like double trap to me. Except it's a single target that you need to hit in two different places.

Garvinator
17-04-2004, 09:22 PM
Sounds a lot like double trap to me. Except it's a single target that you need to hit in two different places.
well, cl does have at least two heads, so i would have to compete in the double trap event ;) :lol: :owned: :whistle:

chesslover
17-04-2004, 11:32 PM
The split happened in 1998, against my very strong objections. However our delegate was strongly urged by some of our players at the Elista Olympiad to support the proposal and it passed. (Note, Darryl and I were not competing in Elista.)
In fact Asia had been trying to offload Oceania from their zone for more than a decade prior to this happening, and in 1998 they finally found Australian and NZ representatives willing to countenance the proposal. We were given a four year opt-back-in-to Asia clause but failed to take it up by 2002.

Ian

but then it seems that the majority of people in Aust Chess admin and top elite players (with the obvious exception of you and Daryl and some others) are still for the continuation of the split???

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2004, 01:59 AM
well, cl does have at least two heads

Aha! Maybe he was born in Tasmania. :owned:

(Someone reading this thread really was born here, but he only had the one head the last time I saw him.)

arosar
21-04-2004, 12:54 PM
Ian,

I have not suggested that you were an advocate for a split in our zone, as you have interpreted in your post.

Very well. So what did you mean when you wrote that Mr Rogers was 'pivotal'?

Mr Rogers here said that, "....our delegate was strongly urged by some of our players at the Elista Olympiad to support the proposal and it passed." That delegate wouldn't be a Mr Viner, would it? Why is he always our delegate anyways?


Mr Rogers also wrote: "In fact Asia had been trying to offload Oceania from their zone for more than a . . ." Why was that?

Mr Rogers: "We were given a four year opt-back-in-to Asia clause but failed to take it up by 2002." So what happens now then eh?

AR