PDA

View Full Version : Burnie Chess Club news



PhilD707
18-02-2007, 11:54 AM
[was "Burnie International Club news"]


In the Club Championship now under way, members were amazed when young Nina Horton (12 years old) scored her first win over a seasoned Club veteran and in decisive fashion to boot.
The game on the Burnie site is worthy of note in its own right but is further enhanced by Nina's feminine notes.
eg "Stop checking me!"

Phil.

Bill Gletsos
12-03-2007, 03:33 PM
The following is in response to post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=146315&postcount=10.

That's pretty funny coming from the author of some of the wackiest tournament conditions Australia has seen..Exactly.
In fact even now Phil runs events where they use Fischer time controls of 90 mins + 30sec but still allow games to be adjourned after 3 hours of play. :doh:

Garvinator
12-03-2007, 03:40 PM
Exactly.
In fact even now Phil runs events where they use Fischer time controls of 90 mins + 30sec but still allow games to be adjourned after 3 hours of play. :doh:
What????

Bill Gletsos
12-03-2007, 03:45 PM
What????The following is from the Burnie chess club web site:

The format this year is a single round robin with a 90/30 Fischer time limit.
Play starts at 7pm sharp and games unfinished at 10pm will be adjourned.
The above refers to the 2007 Burnie Club Championship of which the arbiter is Phil.

pax
12-03-2007, 03:55 PM
The following is from the Burnie chess club web site:
The above refers to the 2007 Burnie Club Championship of which the arbiter is Phil.

That's extraordinary. The primary point of Fischer controls is to avoid adjournments - if a three hour session is so important why not 90 minutes flagfall? In this case he doesn't even have the justification of keeping a subsequent round on schedule, so I'm mystified as to the rationale for an adjournment.

Bill Gletsos
12-03-2007, 04:02 PM
That's extraordinary. The primary point of Fischer controls is to avoid adjournments - if a three hour session is so important why not 90 minutes flagfall? In this case he doesn't even have the justification of keeping a subsequent round on schedule, so I'm mystified as to the rationale for an adjournment.I think its clear from the Increments vs Guillotine thread that he doesnt like guillotine.

Garvinator
12-03-2007, 04:12 PM
Why not use 80 mins + 5 secs per move if you must finish after 3 hours but dont want to use guillotine?

Garvinator
12-03-2007, 04:13 PM
The following is from the Burnie chess club web site:
The above refers to the 2007 Burnie Club Championship of which the arbiter is Phil.
My what?? was disbelief at the logic of adjourning with a 90 + 30 time control ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2007, 05:31 PM
Why not use 80 mins + 5 secs per move if you must finish after 3 hours but dont want to use guillotine?

Because that doesn't give as much thinking time in the endgame as letting games go over 3 hours but spreading that over multiple weeks.

I see where they're coming from in terms of trying to:

* ensure quality games right the way through
* ensure the session finishes not too far after their numerous juniors' normal bedtime

However these two objectives don't sit very well with each other, and adjournments are widely discredited because people can just go home and study the position on a computer. May as well play correspondence chess instead.

PhilD707
13-03-2007, 10:24 AM
I have just found these above thoughts by some of chess chats leading lights.
(I am sure some of them were somewhere else yesterday but they mysteriously dissappeared only to turn up on this thread today.)

I see that Bonham has generously answered your questions on my behalf and I thank him for saving me the trouble of doing so.
Of course his answer is different to the one I would have given but that's hardly important. The main thing is that you have heard from the VP of the ACF and the self-proclaimed expert on Australian chess.

If I could be so bold as to add one other comment.
I cannot remember any Burnie Club member complaining about tournament conditions of events that I have run at the Club over the past 3 years.

Denis_Jessop
13-03-2007, 10:45 AM
I have just found these above thoughts by some of chess chats leading lights.
(I am sure some of them were somewhere else yesterday but they mysteriously dissappeared only to turn up on this thread today.)

I see that Bonham has generously answered your questions on my behalf and I thank him for saving me the trouble of doing so.
Of course his answer is different to the one I would have given but that's hardly important. The main thing is that you have heard from the VP of the ACF and the self-proclaimed expert on Australian chess.

If I could be so bold as to add one other comment.
I cannot remember any Burnie Club member complaining about tournament conditions of events that I have run at the Club over the past 3 years.

That may be but the concept of adjourning games played at Fischer time limits is eccentric to put it in the kindest way.

DJ

PhilD707
13-03-2007, 01:39 PM
That may be but the concept of adjourning games played at Fischer time limits is eccentric to put it in the kindest way.

DJ

Thank you for your kindness Dennis.
I do appreciate such small mercies from folks in lofty positions such as your self.

Just to clarify and do correct me if I am wrong; you are the President of the ACF?

The next Australian Championships is due in 9 months and there is no actual event organised as yet?
There is no ACF newsletter?
The web site has still not been rebuilt?

It just goes to show how little I know.
I would have thought, in my naivety, that you had more important things to do than worry about the eccentricity of a small Club organiser and of course that other hot topic, pink chess sets!

What was that expression about Nero and Rome?

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 01:51 PM
Just to clarify and do correct me if I am wrong; you are the President of the ACF?

Bzzzzt. Don't worry Phil, you're only over two months out of date!

Denis_Jessop
13-03-2007, 02:09 PM
Bzzzzt. Don't worry Phil, you're only over two months out of date!

Not only is the boy hopelessly out of date but he clearly doesn't even read this board carefully as everything he mentions has already been covered here in one thread or another.


DJ

PhilD707
13-03-2007, 02:42 PM
Bzzzzt. Don't worry Phil, you're only over two months out of date!


Sorry.
I looked on the ACF web site.
It says there that Mister Jessop is the President.

I was silly to rely on such an untrustworthy site :lol:

Can anyone reccomend an alternative, more reliable, site for information on the Australian Chess Federation?

I have tried the British, German and USCF sites so far and found them both wanting in that regard.

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 02:58 PM
Can anyone reccomend an alternative, more reliable, site for information on the Australian Chess Federation?

Try your inbox.

On 29 Jan 2007 you were forwarded an email from Gary Wastell concerning the special state teams levy and indicating that Gary is ACF President.

Furthermore on 19 Jan 2007 you were forwarded an email written by me on 21 Dec 2006 indicating that Gary had been elected unopposed as the (at that time) next ACF President. As I'm sure you'll be aware, the election for officebearers is held annually on or about 6 January.

PhilD707
13-03-2007, 03:12 PM
Try your inbox.

On 29 Jan 2007 you were forwarded an email from Gary Wastell concerning the special state teams levy and indicating that Gary is ACF President.

Furthermore on 19 Jan 2007 you were forwarded an email written by me on 21 Dec 2006 indicating that Gary had been elected unopposed as the (at that time) next ACF President. As I'm sure you'll be aware, the election for officebearers is held annually on or about 6 January.


Innovative ideas from your ACF.

No need for a web site!
Just email everyone on the planet with latest ACF news.
Its a so much more personal approach.

No need to plan national events years in advance.
No worries.
We'll organise a barbeque and throw something together before christmas.
Keep an eye on your inbox for details folks!

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Phil, you're trolling your own thread. :lol:

I was referring, of course, to this specific instance - another demonstration of your poor memory.

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2007, 03:39 PM
Not only is the boy hopelessly out of date but he clearly doesn't even read this board carefully as everything he mentions has already been covered here in one thread or another.


DJNot only that it was mentioned in ACF Bulletin #397.

President: Gary Wastell
Deputy President: Bill Gletsos
Vice Presidents: Kevin Bonham; Denis Jessop
Secretary: Jey Hoole
Treasurer: Norm Greenwood

Also the ACCF site that Phil frequents noted back on the 13th October that Gary was the new ACF President.

bergil
13-03-2007, 04:25 PM
Phil, you're trolling your own thread. :lol:

I was referring, of course, to this specific instance - another demonstration of your poor memory.Phil must have a Martins or Swallows nest for a head; Nothing but mud in and :shhh:it out! :hmm:

Denis_Jessop
14-03-2007, 11:27 AM
I wonder when Phil went to the ACF website for his information. I just went there and found this under the link "personnel"


Council

The Council comprises all members of the Executive Committee plus one delegate appointed by each affiliated State Chess Association.
Executive
President Gary Wastell
Deputy President Bill Gletsos
Vice President Denis Jessop
Vice President Kevin Bonham
Secretary Jey Hoole
Treasurer Norm Greenwood
State Delegates
NSWCA Delegate Richard Gastineau-Hills
CV Delegate Geoff Saw
CAQ Delegate Brian Thomas
CAWA Delegate vacant
SACA Delegate George Howard
TCA Delegate Graham Richards
ACTCA Delegate Mos Ali
Non-Executive Office Bearers

From time to time the Council appoints individuals to be responsible for a variety of duries in connection with the purposes of the Federation.
Public Officer (Incorporation) Denis Jessop
FIDE Delegate Phil Viner
Ratings Officer (FIDE System) Greg Canfell
Ratings Officer (ACF System) Bill Gletsos
Selections Coordinator (Non-junior) Kevin Bonham
Selections Coordinator (Juniors) vacant
Convenor-Constitutional Committee Denis Jessop
Medals Coordinator Gary Wastell
Editor Email Newsletter (content) Denis Jessop
Editor Email Newsletter (production) Stephen Cannings
Webmaster Russell Murray murrayr64@westnet.com.au
Advertising Manager Stephen Cannings
Auditor Ross Hamilton

DJ

Southpaw Jim
14-03-2007, 01:08 PM
Maybe he needs to "flush his cache" :lol:

Bill Gletsos
27-05-2007, 12:54 AM
The following is from the Burnie Chess Club website which is maintained by PhilD707.

3 May 2007
This week saw a meeting of old and new when many times previous Champ Dragan Radosavljevic, and Junior candidate for the title Alastair Dyer, met over the board. It proved to be a fascinating encounter that lived up to expectations. Alastair with the black pieces launched his f pawn into Dragan's castled position but the wily DR managed to keep the position fairly closed which favours style of play. With black caught in a vice like grip white gradually got the upper hand provoking pawn weaknesses while bringing his knights in to play.Something had to give and it did with the fall of his d pawn and the loss of the exchange black teetered on the verge of collapse. However DR missed the best lines and when the dust settled Dyer was clearly better with a good Bishop for the Rook and two very powerful passed pawns, though time could now be an issue as Dyer has only 3.5 minutes to Radosavljevic's 30 with a 30 sec fischer increment.
Radosavljevic Dyer (Position) (http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/cc2007/dr_ad.htm)
The game was adjourned at 10:05pm and with Dyer now heading off to Central America and Europe for a month we will have to wait until 6th June for the denouement of this interesting game.So what we have is that Phil is publicly posting his view of the position from a game that is currently still in progress because of adjournment, an adjournment that lasts for a month. :hmm:

This makes an even bigger mockery of the adjournments in place and supported by Phil.:hand:

Basil
27-05-2007, 12:58 AM
This makes an even bigger mockery of the adjournments in place and supported by Phil.:hand:
Remind me of this next HADBBA time? Not sure what category though. Suggestions anyone?

Desmond
27-05-2007, 01:00 AM
Most Creative Tournament Conditions, perhaps?

eclectic
27-05-2007, 01:03 AM
Bill, can't you refuse to rate that game or even the whole tournament? I thought adjournments were now abolished.

Garvinator
27-05-2007, 01:03 AM
Most Creative Tournament Conditions, perhaps?
No, that would go to the club that takes over 3 months to run a 7 round swiss :whistle: ;)

Ian Rout
29-05-2007, 11:23 AM
Bill, can't you refuse to rate that game or even the whole tournament? I thought adjournments were now abolished.
Historically adjourned games have always been reateable. In the early days of FIDE ratings probably the majority of rated games would have been played in tournaments where games were adjourned (though not all or even most of the games actually would have been adjourned).

I think there is a case to say that this is no longer appropriate; while the rating list includes a mix of games played under a variety of conditions, the inclusion of adjourned games in the present day is probably a bridge too far. Not only are the circumstances of the adjournment point more akin to correspondence chess but the conditions are more liberal than CC. However such a change should not be made retrospectively.

I don't see a problem with PhilD commenting on the game. You are allowed to have assistance with adjourned games. Also the advice in the quote is available to both players, and anyway probably not much use to either.

PhilD707
29-05-2007, 03:24 PM
The following is from the Burnie Chess Club website which is maintained by PhilD707.
So what we have is that Phil is publicly posting his view of the position from a game that is currently still in progress because of adjournment, an adjournment that lasts for a month. :hmm:

This makes an even bigger mockery of the adjournments in place and supported by Phil.:hand:


The interested reader will find the response to this remark and more besides in an editorial on the BCC web site.

Phil.

Bill Gletsos
29-05-2007, 03:54 PM
It is to bad the concept of using a time control that fits in with the venue availability seems to have escaped Phil.

Aaron Guthrie
29-05-2007, 04:31 PM
The interested reader will find the response to this remark and more besides in an editorial on the BCC web site.

Phil.I can find plenty of attack on the person making the comment but I can't find the bit were you respond to the content of the comment.

edit: here is the coverage that it is on the comment, to save people reading the rest of it (I would have prefered not to.)


Mr. Gletsos is always vigilant in picking through and finding fault in the relatively innocuous notes on the BCC web site. Here he is referring to commentary that appeared on the site relating to the adjourned game between Dragan Radosavljevic and Alastair Dyer.

He and some others take a dim view of the practice of adjourning games and have described the tournament conditions at the BCC as “wacky”.
By contrast one game at the Hobart Club finished at 12:40 am this week!
This is simply not possible at the BCC for the reasons that we have juniors traveling from as far as one hour’s drive away and in any case the security system of the building means that we must be out by 11pm at the very latest.Which I guess responds to a claim about there being adjournments, but it doesn't really seem to respond to a claim about people commenting on such adjournments. Personally I don't think it is such a problem, but I thought you might provide an argument to that effect. All the treatment that it is given here is to refer to the commentary as innocuous.

Bill Gletsos
29-05-2007, 04:43 PM
I notice where Phil appears to have errors in his crosstable at http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/cc2007/CrossTable.htm

According to that there are games where both players had white(represented by red) e.g. Donnely V Field to name just one.

Also the first part of the draw appears to be missing from http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/cc2007/Draw.htm

The formatting next to the legend at the bottom of the page describing what the letters PE, AB, AJ, Df and F mean appears to be messed up.

Aaron Guthrie
29-05-2007, 04:45 PM
The formatting next to the legend at the bottom of the page describing what the letters PE, AB, AJ, Df and F mean appears to be messed up.What, you never been a "pla" or had a game of "ha"?

Bill Gletsos
29-05-2007, 04:49 PM
What, you never been a "pla" or had a game of "ha"?:lol:

Garvinator
29-05-2007, 05:20 PM
To all posters who are reading this, the BCC mentioned here is BURNIE CHESS CLUB. Just want to make that clear.

Kevin Bonham
29-05-2007, 09:31 PM
By contrast one game at the Hobart Club finished at 12:40 am this week!

Mike Midson having shown up at 9:30pm, Midson and Bettiol agreed to play their game at that hour knowing it could run that late. Neither party was under the slightest compulsion to do so; players just like to get their games in the tournament played when they can, as although the time allowed to get the tournament finished is far from onerous, many are busy with other things as well and can't always attend regularly.


The interested reader will find the response to this remark and more besides in an editorial on the BCC web site.

You mean the unofficial BCC website?

It is a fact that you resigned all your BCC positions, but webmaster was not mentioned in the list of positions you resigned. Yet you continue running your website which combines excellent coverage of local chess events with idiosyncratic nonsense about ratings and chess politics generally, and an obvious piece of recent trolling suggesting that the I in "Hobart International" is pretentious.*

Given that you resigned all your BCC positions yet continue as webmaster, the website is not a Burnie Chess Club website but a Phil Donnelly website, that is mainly focused on excellent coverage of Burnie chess but unfortunately includes far too much coverage of the state of mind of one Phil Donnelly.

Alternatively if the site is formally controlled by the BCC (which I'm pretty confident it isn't) please advise me of this immediately so I can contact them concerning defamatory and other silly material on it and request that you be severely censured and requested to edit it in a manner that does not bring discredit on a fine chess club.

If all defamatory and silly irate material is not removed from the "editorial" immediately, you run the risk of having moves to delink your website initiated against you. You are doing nobody any favours by putting this gutless trash up on it and anyone who reads it can see through the massive chip on your shoulder. (Whoops sorry, mixed metaphor there. :lol: )

Indeed since you have in the past shown that you have no clue what is defamatory and what isn't, it would be a very good idea for you to remove your silly little rant entirely.

* The history for those who care: the club was originally called International Chess Club on account of its ethnically diverse membership to distinguish it from other clubs that were either of one ethnicity only (eg the more or less closed Polish and Hungarian clubs of the time) or clubs that were overwhelmingly Anglo in ethnicity. Our longstanding and excellent venue, a service provider to refugees, migrants and ethnic communities, specifically requested that the "International" be kept in the club's name during a merger of the ICC with the defunct Hobart Chess Club shortly after the ICC's formation. We have kept it there in line with these wishes and hopefully to assist with attracting the interest of both casual and tournament players, senior and junior alike, from a wide range of backgrounds - and because, after all, chess is an international language!

Basil
29-05-2007, 09:41 PM
On a roll, Kev?

"... but unfortunately includes far too much coverage of the state of mind of one Phil Donnelly" :P

and tell me you're (or at least he) is not serious about the capital 'I'.

This is too much.

I think I have the giggles tonight, for which I am grateful (still at the office reconstructing 4 years worth of accounts for someone) - excellent comic relief.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 02:17 AM
and tell me you're (or at least he) is not serious about the capital 'I'.

Actually it's the word "International" he's been trolling about (the title of this thread being the start of it) - I expressed it clumsily above; should have said the I in HICC or the International in Hobart International.

I am pleased to see the gibe in question has now been removed from the site and thank Phil for doing so.

The deaditorial does not appear to have become any less ridiculous, but I haven't checked it word for word.

PhilD707
30-05-2007, 10:20 AM
I can find plenty of attack on the person making the comment but I can't find the bit were you respond to the content of the comment.

edit: here is the coverage that it is on the comment, to save people reading the rest of it (I would have prefered not to.)

Which I guess responds to a claim about there being adjournments, but it doesn't really seem to respond to a claim about people commenting on such adjournments. Personally I don't think it is such a problem, but I thought you might provide an argument to that effect. All the treatment that it is given here is to refer to the commentary as innocuous.


As is now common knowledge in the Chess World it is not possible to conduct consistently balanced and intelligent debate on this forum due the lack fair and unbiased moderation.
Consequently I don’t see any point in doing so.

I can however offer an alternative.
There is another Chess based internet forum named the Australian Chess Club Forum.
The moderation on this board, in contrast, has shown itself to be consistently firm but fair.
I am happy to respond on that forum to non-trivial and non-abusive comment and/or argument from anyone who really wishes to explore the issues raised here.

Mangafranga, I have already created a thread there which has a response to your comment/query on playing conditions at the BCC.

I would also be happy to create another thread there that could be used to discuss my assertion that the ACF is ailing.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Phil.

Spiny Norman
30-05-2007, 10:49 AM
In another place I posted the following ... and I may as well post it here:


Hi Phil,

First of all, can I commend you all at Burnie for doing whatever is necessary to meet the needs of players (and the club's needs) in whatever way that you all feel is necessary. The heart and soul of Australian chess is the local club scene. If we lose that, then we lose the lot. So if adjournments are a necessary "evil" for your circumstances, then so be it, and its really nobody else's business.

Regarding your concerns about hi-jacking of the purpose of your thread on Chess Chat, may I suggest that you PM Rincewind (board administrator) and ask for all the off-topic stuff to be moved to another thread ... or alternatively ... stop posting yourself in that thread and start two new threads:

#1 Tournament Results (BCC)
-- put a note at the top that there is another thread for discussion of same, and that posts from non-Burnie people are not welcomed in the Results thread -- direct them to the other one

#2 Discussion of Tournaments/Results (BCC)

That way you can rightly ask for all off-topic stuff to be moved to #2 (where you can choose to ignore it) so that #1 is not "polluted" by unwanted material.

If I were in your position, in respect to my club, this is how I would approach it.

Cheers,

Steve

Aaron Guthrie
30-05-2007, 10:49 AM
Mangafranga, I have already created a thread there which has a response to your comment/query on playing conditions at the BCC.Thanks for the response.

arosar
30-05-2007, 01:57 PM
Hey I read this editorial (http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/editorial.htm) last night and Phil here is completing laying it into Bill and Kevo. What a hoot!

Is that like Phil's personal blog or something or is that really the chess club's website?

AR

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 02:17 PM
AR - see #36 for my view on the matter.


[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]As is now common knowledge in the Chess World it is not possible to conduct consistently balanced and intelligent debate on this forum due the lack fair and unbiased moderation.

Plenty of others have no trouble.

It is not possible for you to conduct balanced and intelligent debate on this forum because it is not possible for you to conduct balanced and intelligent debate about the issues in question, full stop.

On other venues where you push your dodgy little barrow you come out with exactly the same sort of rubbish. Your rant on your site is riddled with factual errors which I may well itemise later.


I can however offer an alternative.
There is another Chess based internet forum named the Australian Chess Club Forum.
The moderation on this board, in contrast, has shown itself to be consistently firm but fair.

Actually it has shown itself to be consistently virtually nonexistent even in cases where non-members are routinely defamed by idiots with massive grudges.

MichaelBaron
30-05-2007, 02:17 PM
In the light of the rapid developments of chess software, having adjournments is ridiculous in the first place! I am surprised that some chess club still supports such a time limit. It is a bit like renting a horse cart to get to your office instead of catching a train.


I am not going to analyze the "final position" since it is unethical to comment on an unfinished adjourned game and offer any moves....let me just say that would the game be played without any interruptions, the position could be assessed as unclear. Now, one of the sides can get a big advantage simply by entering the position into Fritz or Rybka...in fact this position can be analyzed virtually till the end of the game....

It would be even more entertaining if the adjourned position would have less then 8 pieces. It would mean that a strong computer program would be able to analyse it with 100% accuracy.

So why not call the Burnie club CC a postal or "advanced chess" tournament? I do not think this game shoud be rated!

MichaelBaron
30-05-2007, 02:28 PM
Hey I read this editorial (http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/editorial.htm) last night and Phil here is completing laying it into Bill and Kevo. What a hoot!

Is that like Phil's personal blog or something or is that really the chess club's website?

AR

I do agree with some of the comments made by Phil in that Blog about the ACF. However, I am not sure what they got to do with the Burnie chess club....or with the practice of adjourning games.:hmm:

From reading the blog, one gets the impression that the Chess clocks are not in use in the club. In this case, how can the games be rated?

If the club does indeed have the chess clocks, a simple solution could be to speed up the time limit!

Basil
30-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Your editor resigned from his position as Tournament Director on the Burnie Chess Club in April this year. ... his resignation has not had the desired effect and the unsolicited ridicule of a certain group of malcontents continues to dog the BCC on Australia’s leading public internet Chess Forum – the Chess Chat forum.
Phil your approach to many topics on the forum paid neither heed to accuracy nor due process. Please don't forget you are in a minority of malcontents, which is both your right and your due.


This forum is nominally the property of a Mr. Karthick Rajestan a business man who owns both the forum software and the servers that it runs on, however for all practical purposes the forum belongs to, and is managed by, Mr Bill Gletsos and Mr Kevin Bonham.
The site is indeed 'managed for practical purposes' by those two men, and others. However, to suggest 'propriety for practical purposes' is a further example of the point made above (first sentence). You are as inaccurate as ever. No wonder you are ridiculed.


These two have adopted a vigilante style of approach to their management role...
This allegaton has been raised by probably 5 people since the board's inception. That 5 people claim it, doesn't make it true. That only 5 people claim it, makes it unlikely to be true. Any balanced scrutiny proves it untrue.


and as they are both key functionaries in the ACF (Deputy President and Vice President resp.), it is hardly surprising that although the forum has no official mandate in Australian Chess, it has become the de facto means of dissemination of much of the information relating to Chess events and ratings etc in Australia.
Good on them. Good on the board. Good on its particpants. Do you have a point?


This extreme level of intolerance has resulted in many decent chess players either being forcibly driven away from the Chess Chat forum or simply leaving voluntarily when they are no longer able to cope with unrelenting abusive behaviour on the site.
Can you name a substantial quantity of them? Please try and be accurate and supply factual information rather than just grab names out of thin air. Brusque? It's that you're not substantiating any of your publicly made claims. Refer my point 1, sentence 1, again. You pay no heed to due process.


In March your editor was banned for 2 months from this forum and that period of time has recently elapsed.
You fail to tell your audience why you were banned. I think they should know, else this is just a self-serving, unsubstantiated and selective soliloquy.


{Bill Gletsos heckling said} “So what we have is that Phil is publicly posting his view of the position from a game that is currently still in progress because of adjournment, an adjournment that lasts for a month.
This makes an even bigger mockery of the adjournments in place and supported by Phil.”
How is this any different to what you are doing regarding the ACF? It is Bill's assessment of your behaviour. No abuse. No ridicule. As ever, you are entirely misrepresenting the facts.


But while the deputy President of the ACF is occupied digging up such gross transgressions of FIDE Chess law at the BCC who is at the steering wheel and looking after the really important, ACF matters?
For example:
Australian Chess is still basking in the after-glow of the tremendously successful international events ...
Phil, at this point you should have taken a breath IMO. You have said nothing of substance. Do you have a platform? Can you suggest what the ACF should do? If so, why didn't you include a couple of suggestions in your piece. This is just a self-serving whine big on rhetoric - much like your offerings on the bulletin board.


If the reader wishes to discover the reasons for the junior boom he would do better to talk to one of the successful Chess business people who have been primarily responsible for it such as e.g. Mr. David Cordover.
And Graeme Gardiner. And Brian Jones. Sure, people whose full-time business is chess. You're asking readers to talk to these people? OK.


So what does the ACF actually do?
Well there’s administration of the ratings system. But this is a system that incredibly has no documentation ...
What documentation would you like? If your point is a fair one, it is hardly worth wading to this point to find it. And what of it? Do you actually have an allegation about the lack of documentation, or is it just that you want someone to write some.


and is questioned on its ability to cope with the deflationary effects of high numbers of juniors coming in to the game.
All systems struggle with this. Your lack of acknowledgement of this only reaffirms my earlier suggestion of little balance in your writings.


Well January is now only 6 months away now and people have to make arrangements for their Christmas break. But how far has the ACF got. Not far.
The ACF asks for submissions from the states. None has been received. Is it your lack of comprehension of this point or your deliberate misrepresentation that is at play? If you wish to make the point that it is now time for the ACF to step in, please do so but then also acknowledge that they should because the states have been lacking. This is why I, for one, call you an obfuscating dribbler. You have so much to say and so little of it is worth the time of day.


There was however a solid proposal put many months ago from yet another very successful Chess businessman and an experienced tournament director, Mr Peter Parr of Sydney.
Was this proposal a solid one? I personally don't know. I'm sure your facts are lock-tight, of course. Please elaborate. I'm listening.


He offered run the event in Bondi. Mr Parr and his proposal were ridiculed out of town on the Chess Chat forum by the very successful non-business man Mr. Kevin Bonham.
Troll. I thought you rose above that sort of thing.


So what have the ACF being doing over the past six months since the national championship in Brisbane?
18 months. More wrong information.


The ACF newsletter is increasingly sporadic and unreliable.
More wrong information.


The much-vaunted and desperately-needed revamp to the ACF web site has still not materialised.
True, but whose fault is that? We need a volunteer. Or are you laying this at the feet of Bonham and Gletsos?


A really hot topic lately was whether or not the term “twat”, as used by one of the site moderators, is an acceptable way to address other site members! After much discussion and soul searching Mr. Bonham declared that the term was “unparliamentary”.
And he removed the reference made by the site admin! What more do you want? It was grey area to start with. More bob-each-way, double standard dribble.


The conclusions are inescapable.
Your conclusions are incomprehensible.


The ACF as a body with the role of administering Chess in Australia is an unmitigated disaster.
Why? You certainly haven't proved anything so far.


While so many Australian sportsmen and women are world beaters on the international stage Australian Chess players are the minnows who are pleased to finish in the top 35 of world competition at the olympiads.
Culture. Climate. Money. More volunteers. True of many western countries. But you are laying all this personally at the feet of Bonham and Gletsos?


Where there is a need for business acumen we find instead bureaucratic attitudes and "constitutions" that have rendered this body ineffective and impotent.
I have business acumen. I was president CAQ for 5 years. Graeme Gardiner has business acumen. He was ACF president. Brian Jones has business acumen. He's got a financial interest in what you pursue. Cordover ditto. Why aren't these people in your sights. What about when they were administrators? What about asking those that haven't contributed to do so? Do you hold them accountable too?

No, you want to lay all this at the feet of Bonham and Gletsos, because you are a goose with barrow.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 08:40 PM
In another place I posted the following ... and I may as well post it here:

About the alleged thread hijacking, this stuff is all here because it is discussion about the tournament. It's normal to have discussion about the tournament in the tournament news thread, but if a specific incident generates massive side-debate then it gets moved.

What's happened here is that despite starting a tournament news thread on 18-02-2007 which he's claimed he intended to use for "regular updates", no such updates have been posted beyond the first post. Nor was there any sign of any prior to material about the tournament being moved here from other threads almost a month later. (Phil was banned for two months of his time, but that's his own fault, and I'm sure he's not the only BCC member with web access.)

I'm therefore not sure if there's anything to protect from threadjacking; it's possible the real main purpose of the thread was trolling the HICC through the deliberately erroneous inclusion of "International" in the thread name.

If Phil asks nicely I will split all the posts except the first one into Australian Chess.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 09:55 PM
OK, my reply as foreshadowed:


Unfortunately his resignation has not had the desired effect and the continues to dog the BCC on Australia’s leading public internet Chess Forum – the Chess Chat forum.

What this shows is that those criticising adjournments are doing so because they are opposed to adjournments, and the adjournments are still occurring, and not because the adjournments are a Phil Donnelly idea.

My own view is that the benefit of adjournments (being able to play a weekly event at a longer time control) is not worth the cost (endgame becomes a test of home study ability not ability to quickly understand the position OTB, and computer use is difficult to avoid). Any comment on people's motives is generally just speculation, but my sincere speculation concerning the existence of adjournments at the BCC is that Phil Donnelly likes long increments because he cannot manage his time properly as a player without them, as I have personally seen proven many times (and even escaped with an undeserved draw once on account of!)


Should a view appear on any forum controversy that does not align well with that held by Mr. Gletsos and Mr.[[i]sic] Bonham they treat the “offender” with abuse and ridicule and an arrogance that is born out of their own personal perception of ownership of the site.

This unsubstantiated idiocy has been refuted here many times before - Bill and I are both very capable of cordial disagreement (unlike some) but choose not to exercise it towards those who initiate false personal attacks.


This extreme level of intolerance has resulted in many decent chess players either being forcibly driven away from the Chess Chat forum or simply leaving voluntarily when they are no longer able to cope with unrelenting abusive behaviour on the site.

One would hardly describe Matthew Sweeney or AO as decent either in their behaviour on the board (or all that decent in player skill!)

Posters coming and going occurs on any site and I can only think of two posters who have left and more or less stayed off on account of dissatisfaction with the way people were behaving towards them (namely jenni and ursogr8). Cat may have also crawled off with his tail between his legs but he was generally more abusive towards other posters and with less provocation than they were to him.


There is a forum “thread” on Chess Chat, (named the Burnie International Club News).
It was started by your editor some time ago simply to post regular updates of events run by the BCC and with no other hidden agenda whatsoever.

That does not explain the use of "International" in the thread name. At the time I thought it may have been merely whimsical (and this is still possible) but subsequent now-deleted trolling re "International" on the unofficial BCC site suggests perhaps otherwise.

It also doesn't explain why the thread was not updated at any stage, if intended to be updated "regular"ly.


This thread has been entirely “high-jacked” by Gletsos, Bonham and a small group of their sycophantic supporters and it's contents are a revealing insight on modus operandii of these people.

Wrong. Most of the discussion in mid-March arose on another thread and was moved to this thread because it related to the event in question but was irrelevant to the thread it had been posted on. Phil himself subsequently posted off-topic material on this thread thus contributing to the "hijack" he was complaining about.


By contrast one game at the Hobart Club finished at 12:40 am this week!

As noted above this was by agreement of the players.


This is simply not possible at the BCC for the reasons that we have juniors traveling from as far as one hour’s drive away and in any case the security system of the building means that we must be out by 11pm at the very latest.

This is all fair enough (assuming it is completely factual) but you have obvious
alternatives, such as:

* Use of a shorter base time
* Use of a shorter increment or, horror of horrors, no increment at all
* Starting earlier


Well there’s administration of the ratings system. But this is a system that incredibly has no documentation and is questioned on its ability to cope with the deflationary effects of high numbers of juniors coming in to the game.

Wrong. It has plenty of documentation, it's just that it isn't wallpapered on every street corner as you appear to prefer.

Furthermore that it is "questioned" means nothing - the point is, are the questions sound?


I use the word “organise’ with some trepidation for who can forget the debacle that was Mount Buller?

Well I can't, but that's not surprising, since I was actually there, unlike you. The so-called debacle still attracted more players than the subsequent staging of the same event in a far more accessible location.


There was however a solid proposal put many months ago from yet another very successful Chess businessman and an experienced tournament director, Mr Peter Parr of Sydney.
He offered run the event in Bondi. Mr Parr and his proposal were ridiculed out of town on the Chess Chat forum by the very successful non-business man Mr.[sic] Kevin Bonham.

Phil, could you convince the ATO that I am not a businessman? It would certainly cut the number of small-business type forms that I, as a consultant, have to fill out every July! :lol:

Mr Parr's proposal was never ridiculed by me at all. Mr Parr himself most certainly was because the way he criticised the reaction to his proposal (which was what I criticised him for) was indeed ridiculous. The problem has always been that the Peter Parr model, while potentially the basis for a successful Aus Champs, has nobody willing to run it to the point of preparing bidding documents and accepting financial risks.


So what has the ACF been doing over the past six months since the national championship in Brisbane?
The ACF newsletter is increasingly sporadic and unreliable.

False. The newsletter switched to a fortnightly production schedule and has been appearing on that basis give or take a few days consistently, just as the old one seldom appeared exactly weekly.


While so many Australian sportsmen and women are world beaters on the international stage Australian Chess players are the minnows who are pleased to finish in the top 35 of world competition at the olympiads.

Even finishing in the top 35 is punching above our weight in rankings terms.

Given that Australia has a small population and a climate and culture strongly suited to outside sports rather than indoor sports, our chess performance on the world stage is far from weak.

As for your claims regarding "business acumen", I today received a proposal from you that a certain body be renamed.

It would not be appropriate for me to say to whom this email was sent or what it concerned, as you may have intended some measure of confidence.

However I challenge you to publicly reveal which body you have suggested be renamed and what you have suggested it be renamed to.

Those facts alone will show you have not the first clue about "business acumen".

*rest skipped out of boredom*

eclectic
30-05-2007, 10:11 PM
Ok Dr. Bonham, is "Mr." really that sic(k) given that your responses often have the surgical succinctness of a consultant specialist?

;) ;)

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2007, 10:18 PM
Hey I read this editorial (http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/editorial.htm) last night and Phil here is completing laying it into Bill and Kevo. What a hoot!The poor soul is flapping around like a fish out of water.

Is that like Phil's personal blog or something or is that really the chess club's website?As he quoted over there:

Also worth clarifying is that the Burnie Web Site is a privately owned publication and although it has no formal relationship with the Burnie Chess Club it has a strong de facto relationship with the BCC.In that case the link at http://www.chesstasmania.org.au/Tas%20Clubs/Burnie/BurnieClub.html which says:
"For the latest news of events at Burnie visit the Club's Web site The Burnie Chess Club" and links to Phil's website really needs to be reworded so as to clarify the situation.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 10:27 PM
Ok Dr. Bonham, is "Mr." really that sic(k) given that your responses often have the surgical succinctness of a consultant specialist?


Thanks. I shall take Phil's upgrading of my doctorate to surgical status as a compliment, although I should state that I personally dissected only two (2) snails in obtaining it.

On another forum my flaming technique was once compared to vivisection. :lol:

PhilD707
31-05-2007, 09:57 AM
In the light of the rapid developments of chess software, having adjournments is ridiculous in the first place! I am surprised that some chess club still supports such a time limit. It is a bit like renting a horse cart to get to your office instead of catching a train.


I am not going to analyze the "final position" since it is unethical to comment on an unfinished adjourned game and offer any moves....let me just say that would the game be played without any interruptions, the position could be assessed as unclear. Now, one of the sides can get a big advantage simply by entering the position into Fritz or Rybka...in fact this position can be analyzed virtually till the end of the game....

It would be even more entertaining if the adjourned position would have less then 8 pieces. It would mean that a strong computer program would be able to analyse it with 100% accuracy.

So why not call the Burnie club CC a postal or "advanced chess" tournament? I do not think this game shoud be rated!


Michael,
for reasons discussed in post #39 (perhaps you missed this?) above I can't respond to your comments here however the points that you make are worthy of discussion and I have given my view them on the thread on tournament conditions at the BCC on the Australian Chess Club Forum.

Again sorry for the inconvenience.

Phil.

eclectic
31-05-2007, 10:17 AM
I can't help but be reminded here of the arab proverb which prefaces John le Carré's A Perfect Spy:

A man with two wives loses his soul; a man with two households loses his head.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2007, 09:44 PM
Phil - firstly your treatment of the Dyer-Radosavljevic game as a forfeit isn't correct. It should be scored as a ratable win to Dyer as the game has commenced and moves have been played, and so Dragan's withdrawal should be treated as a resignation of his adjourned game with Dyer and a forfeit of all his remaining games. (A shame, it would have been good to have it played out.)

It occurs to me that while Dragan's stated grounds for withdrawal as reported by you are invalid (given that he accepted the conditions of the event) he would be one of the first chessplayers in Australian chess history, if not the first, to have an opponent whose clock read 3.5 minutes (albeit with increment) adjourn the game at such a juncture. If that has anything to do with it then I can only say that you should have seen it coming and that this is yet another failed reinvention of the wheel. (At least that car in the picture in your rantitorial has wheels that are round. If it was your car they would probably be triangular. :lol: )

Apart from that it appears you have handled the situation correctly. You are right that it "is regrettable since those who played and lost or drew with him are at an obvious unfair disadvantage", but I doubt his withdrawal "will make a virtual nonsense out of most, or all, of the final placings of the event." That seems a little exaggerated - it will probably mean some players finish up a place or two higher or lower than would otherwise have occurred. Dragan's own result will be nonsense, but that's what you get when you withdraw.

Why do you say Dragan missed previous seasons "without notice"? Surely it's up to him what tournaments he plays in or does not and if he doesn't play it's not up to him to tell you that.


[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]Michael,
for reasons discussed in post #39 (perhaps you missed this?) above I can't respond to your comments here however the points that you make are worthy of discussion and I have given my view them on the thread on tournament conditions at the BCC on the Australian Chess Club Forum.

The real reason is more likely to be one or more of the following:
* You are trolling.
* You are seeking to post your comments somewhere where they will not be directly replied to by Bill or I (hoping perhaps that they will be taken seriously by those who do not see the other side of the story).
* You are seeking to circumvent the rules of this site by posting risky material elsewhere then referring to it here. (If so, don't bother - we stopped this nonsense when Matt was doing it on UCJ and can easily stop it again.)
* You are seeking to drum up interest in the dying online telephone box you refer to.

Anyway, I note on ACCF that you openly report the use of chess software by players in their adjournments. Firstly, this clearly contradicts the aim of adjournments which is supposedly to "provide tournament time limits similar to national events and those of other heavyweights like the Doeberl and SIO." Doeberl and the SIO would be very different tournaments if you could take a break for a few hours three hours in and plug the game into your computer!

Secondly, it undercuts the defence of rating the event that I was going to employ (if I could be bothered) on your behalf, which was that there was no proof of use of outside assistance and therefore for all I could know it might be just like the good old days when some people really did work on their adjournments by themselves at home, or at top level with their seconds. (I'm sure others got on the phone to their resident GM, but in principle that sort of thing wasn't happening at club level.)

I also note that you defend the practice by comparing it to "preparing your opening play with the aid of a computer". This is false, given that a computer actually has little clue about how to play the first few moves of the game beyond what its opening book tells it, and hence all you can do is analyse opening positions that someday might arise (and unless you're very strong you won't remember all the analysis when you do), rather than having the computer definitely on hand at a critical juncture of a game.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2007, 10:16 PM
Is anyone aware of any other chess clubs in Australia where events are run that allow for games to be adjourned?

Garvinator
31-05-2007, 11:49 PM
Is anyone aware of any other chess clubs in Australia where events are run that allow for games to be adjourned?
Yes, one club. Redlands chess club in Bayside Brisbane area.

They have one tournament per year that has adjournments.

Time control for that event is 30 moves in 90 minutes, then 10 moves in 30 minutes repeating. The tournament is not rated.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2007, 12:57 AM
I was tempted to adjourn one of the games at Croydon tonight. Everyone else had finished by 10PM, but one game went until about 11:15 and ended finally around move #90. :evil:

PhilD707
01-06-2007, 02:55 AM
Mr. Bonham,
Your post is not only factually wrong
(eg read the BCC page more carefully: Dragan missed sessions not seasons and I am not the tournament director of the BCC Championship which really you of all people should know by now.)

but as always it is abusive - eg "rantitorical" - hence no response from me here

I invite you yet again to make your comment and argument on the level playing field of the ACCF forum.
The moderator/s there will strip your remarks of abuse and we could then get down to reasoned adult discussion.
I appreciate that this would require a degree of courage on your part and as such I am sure that you would earn the respect of posters here (and there) if you did so.

Phil.

Bereaved
01-06-2007, 02:59 AM
Is anyone aware of any other chess clubs in Australia where events are run that allow for games to be adjourned?

Yes Bill,

The Frankston chess club of which I am a member meets at the Frankston RSL and has an absolute finish time of 11.30 pm near enough. There have been numerous adjournments over the years, though the frequency is far less now than it was previously.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 03:05 AM
Mr. Bonham,
Your post is not only factually wrong
(eg read the BCC page more carefully: Dragan missed sessions not seasons and I am not the tournament director of the BCC Championship which really you of all people should know by now.)

but as always it is abusive - eg "rantitorical" - hence no response from me hereYou really are desperate if you are picking on typing errors.

I invite you yet again to make your comment and argument on the level playing field of the ACCF forum.
The moderator/s there will strip your remarks of abuse and we could then get down to reasoned adult discussion.They havent previously.

I appreciate that this would require a degree of courage on your part and as such I am sure that you would earn the respect of posters here (and there) if you did so.Haha this is rich coming from you.
You demonstrate your gutlessness by putting your attacks on your own web page, a page that to the casual observer appears to be the official BCC web site.

Basil
01-06-2007, 03:06 AM
Mr. Bonham, Your post is ...
Stop babbling.

Kevin Bonham has responded most reasonably to your assertions that were supported with either little or no evidence, or themselves were trolling or unfactual.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 03:07 AM
Yes Bill,

The Frankston chess club of which I am a member meets at the Frankston RSL and has an absolute finish time of 11.30 pm near enough. There have been numerous adjournments over the years, though the frequency is far less now than it was previously.In my question I was referring to current times rather than when it was more of a common practice years ago.

So why dont they just pick a time control that fits into their available playing session.

bergil
01-06-2007, 03:12 AM
Yes Bill,

The Frankston chess club of which I am a member meets at the Frankston RSL and has an absolute finish time of 11.30 pm near enough. There have been numerous adjournments over the years, though the frequency is far less now than it was previously.

Take care and God Bless, MacavityNo excuse, if a club can't run a tournament game and have it finish by 11:30 pm then they should choose other time controls. :hand:

Basil
01-06-2007, 03:13 AM
No excuse, if a club can't run a tournament game and have it finish by 11:30 pm then they should choose other time controls. :hand:
What about if all parties to the game are happy with extended time controls?

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 03:16 AM
What about if all parties to the game are happy with extended time controls?Such as?

bergil
01-06-2007, 03:17 AM
What about if all parties to the game are happy with extended time controls?Then don't rate them and let everyone enjoy themselves. ;)

Or maybe play correspondence or internet chess. :hmm:

Or start earlier? :eek:

Basil
01-06-2007, 03:18 AM
I don't understand Bill. I was answering Berg's comment about no excuse.

Surely a late game is fine if everyone involved is happy to adjourn or play into the wee hours?

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 03:18 AM
What about if all parties to the game are happy with extended time controls?I think bergil simply meant that time limits should be picked that fit into the available playing session.

As such if you have a 5 hour session pick a time control that fits but dont pick a time control that would be fine in a 5-6 hour session if you only have a 4 hour playing window.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 03:21 AM
I don't understand Bill. I was answering Berg's comment about no excuse.

Surely a late game is fine if everyone involved is happy to adjourn or play into the wee hours?Nowadays with the programs available it doesnt make much sense to allow games to be adjourned and then rated.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2007, 07:23 AM
Bill, I understand where you, Bergil and others are coming from, and mostly I agree. Its the "should" that I have trouble with:


time limits should be picked that fit into the available playing session
I get asked a fair bit whether we're going to offer 90+30 instead of our usual 60+30. This year we're going to run one tournament which has that longer time control. We recognise that there are competing interests:

- some players want shorter controls, some longer
- some organisers want to go home at a reasonable hour, some don't care
- some venues impose an absolute guillotine

No matter what we do, some games are going to drag on and on. Last night's game at Croydon was a classic example. It went for around 90 moves and could well have gone much, much longer ... it very nearly ended up in a K+B+N vs K ending at one point, and that could almost have been guaranteed to add another hour to the finish time (assumption: many <1500 players would struggle to win that ending in less than 50 moves).

If there's an absolute venue access constraint, then the key factors are probably going to be:

- time control that suits most of the players
- time control that suits the organiser(s)
- whether adjournments are or are not seen as acceptable

On that latter point, I would presume that there would need to be:

- consideration of the player's views (some won't want to come back later)
- consideration of the club/organiser's views (ditto)
- consideration of the ACF's views (ratings policy)

If a club decides that it suits its player's interests to have adjournments, why would anyone else care? (subject to comment above re: ACF ratings policy).

PhilD707
01-06-2007, 10:16 AM
You really are desperate if you are picking on typing errors.

"Typing error"?
You might like to read Mr. Bonham's post #54 again more carefully.

PhilD707
01-06-2007, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Phil - firstly your treatment of the Dyer-Radosavljevic game as a forfeit isn't correct. It should be scored as a ratable win to Dyer as the game has commenced and moves have been played, and so Dragan's withdrawal should be treated as a resignation of his adjourned game with Dyer and a forfeit of all his remaining games..... QUOTE]


FYI

I have queried this and the organsiers of the event have confirmed that results of both of Dragan Radosavljevic's uncompleted adjourned games are to be treated as forfeits.

Phil Bourke
01-06-2007, 10:36 AM
Bill, I understand where you, Bergil and others are coming from, and mostly I agree. Its the "should" that I have trouble with:.............
Well said Frosty. I agree with you. I think a few people need to realise that in a club situation, you are often dictated to by constraints/influences that aren't covered by the rules of chess. For instance, our Blayney-Bathurst games are a game in 60 because I only have two digital clocks and Bathurst has never considered buying any of the newer clocks when their old ones are still doing a good job for what they want. All it needed was a little compromise and we have a good interclub series up and running when there was nothing there before.
Although the Burnie situation may appear to be 'strange' to those outside of the club, if the Club members are happy with the conditions and enjoy playing there, I say don't go fixing what isn't broken. The only time this would be an issue worthy of discussion would be if Burnie were contemplating running a tournament for all-comers with the same conditions and enough of those proposed visitors complained and didn't play because of their objection to this matter.
We (Blayney Chess Club) had a newcomer last week, who proceeded to badmouth one of the Sydney Suburban Clubs because they had gone there for a night and felt that the Club treated them shockingly for the entire night, and then made a belated gesture of asking them to come more often when they were leaving. I don't know anyone from this club, but still defended them saying that they must have had something happening that precluded them from catering to visitors in a manner they would normally do in the hope that all chess clubs treat new visitors to their club as a joyous occassion akin to finding gold.
So what I am saying, as long as a Club is getting people in and playing chess, they are doing something right, and if they are coaching juniors, encouraging participation in weekend tournaments, etc, then they are even better clubs.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2007, 12:17 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]
Mr.[sic] Bonham,

Wazza matter Phil? Been dissected so thoroughly on this thread that all you have left is picking at fairly minor points while pretending that you aren't replying?


Your post is not only factually wrong
(eg read the BCC page more carefully: Dragan missed sessions not seasons

My apologies if I misread it; I have had the odd similar occurrence recently although none of them were straight misreadings of the sort you suggest.

You recently edited the page to remove some trolling from the March 24 item. Has the March 31 item been edited in any way?


and I am not the tournament director of the BCC Championship which really you of all people should know by now.)

Yes I am aware that you are no longer the TD but I still consider you responsible for the design of the tournament, which appears to have provoked Dragan's withdrawal, as you were TD when it started. (It would hardly be fair for the new TD to change conditions mid-event). However if the current TD ruled the game a forfeit (I assumed you had misrecorded it off your own bat) then please advise them it should be a normal (rated) win, as should the other adjourned game. I'm sure Bill will confirm that this is the correct procedure if necessary - just as a mobile phone "forfeit" is a normal rated win.


I invite you yet again to make your comment and argument on the level playing field of the ACCF forum.

ACCF is not a level playing field but an anarchic gravel pit ruled and occupied by a very small number of resentful little children. Fortunately a few adults post there now and then to keep an eye on them but it is no fit place for the likes of I.

I have advised both the moderator and admin there of my conditions for joining ACCF, which include commitments from them to moderate defamation competently (including the rectification of all existing defo about which complaints have been lodged), and certain steps to rectify unfactual outdated blathering about my personal life on UCJ and prevent a recurrence of such errors in the future. A whole two conditions and if they agreed to them I suspect interest in and post volume on their little cesspit would increase greatly!


The moderator/s there will strip your remarks of abuse and we could then get down to reasoned adult discussion.

They have seldom done this with any other abuse in the past, except where it was between existing posters and one of them was Arrogant-One. Doubtless they would be scrutinising anything I posted there for imaginary ways in which it could be construed as abuse, but that would only show their inconsistency.


I appreciate that this would require a degree of courage on your part and as such I am sure that you would earn the respect of posters here (and there) if you did so.

Oh dear, here's Phil insinuating that I lack courage even though he himself regards such claims when made about him as defamatory. He's remarkably sensitive to thoughts that he might be another gutless troll.

I do not need to earn the respect of posters here.
I do not care about the respect of posters there.
If you want to demonstrate even the remotest thing about courage then how about you put a link on your "editorial" to my main reply to it here (#48), or better still grant me unlimited and unedited right of reply to your personal criticisms of me in the place where they occur?

PhilD707
01-06-2007, 01:53 PM
[excessive quoting snipped-mod]


Amen.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 02:04 PM
FYI

I have queried this and the organsiers of the event have confirmed that results of both of Dragan Radosavljevic's uncompleted adjourned games are to be treated as forfeits.It is really quite simple and they should be treated as losses, not forfeits. I have made a note to check they are recorded correctly when they are eventually submitted for rating.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2007, 04:39 PM
"Typing error"?
You might like to read Mr. Bonham's post #54 again more carefully.I should have been clearer, however it was late and I was more focussed on ratings than your dribblings.

What I was getting at was that your focussing on "season" v session" was just as lame as picking up on typing errors. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2007, 09:02 PM
Deepest apologies for making an on-topic post on this thread, but word has reached me that Alastair Dyer won yet another game last night and is now 12/12 and assured of outright first in the Burnie Club Champs with just one game to go for a picket fence.

Whatever the result of that final game this is an outstanding acheivement.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

PhilD707
17-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Alastair Dyer is the new Burnie Club Champion for 2007 and the 1st junior to win the title in the Club's history! (Estab 1942)
To mark this occasion I have posted a short profile of the new Champ on the BCC site at
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/
I hope that you will find it to be interesting reading.

I wonder how many other Clubs in Australia have, or will have, junior Champions in 2007?

Phil.

Bill Gletsos
17-06-2007, 02:03 PM
I wonder how many other Clubs in Australia have, or will have, junior Champions in 2007?NSW Junior Max Illingworth who is 9 months younger than Alastair won the North Sydney Club Championship earlier this year.

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2007, 02:24 PM
I enjoyed the coverage. Phil comments on the question of a picket-fence in the Burnie Club Champs:


To find a similar incidence of a 100% score in the Club Championship one would need to go back a long way

This is correct and it was further back than I expected! As far as I can tell the last time this was done was by Neville Ledger (11/11) in 1975.

Watto
17-06-2007, 02:26 PM
I enjoyed the coverage.
Yes, very interesting. Thanks Phil. :)

PhilD707
25-06-2007, 05:32 PM
The official report (by the organisers) on the Tasmanian Open 2007 at Burnie has been passed on to me and is now up on the BCC site.
http://members.dodo.com.au/~phild707/
The report includes photos and a few games.
Phil.

PhilD707
28-06-2007, 05:29 PM
Sheffield Junior Alastair Dyer's great run at the BCC Championship ended last night when he lost to Carey Kuzmic in a surprise upset.

As winner of the event, Alastair gets his name in the record books as the 1st junior ever to achieve this, but if he wants to be the 1st person to post a perfect score in the tournament since 1975 that will have to wait until next year.

Phil.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2007, 07:59 PM
Shane Harvey also won the event as a very recently ex-junior (on most definitions - some define junior as U20, or as U18 at start of year) in 1985. As far as I'm aware he was eighteen by the end of the event; I am unsure whether he was eighteen at the start.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2007, 09:08 PM
That does not explain the use of "International" in the thread name. At the time I thought it may have been merely whimsical (and this is still possible) but subsequent now-deleted trolling re "International" on the unofficial BCC site suggests perhaps otherwise.

And as there has been still more trolling of this kind elsewhere it seems I must use this thread to acquaint Phil with the facts re the use of "International" in HICC once again:

1. A club at first formed primarily of former Balkans area players in around 1993 was initially called the International Chess Club to distinguish it from white anglo-saxon varieties, of which there were, at the time, a couple in the city.

2. The International Chess Club merged with the defunct Hobart Chess Club, the trustees of which offered the ICC its assets on the condition that the new club's name incorporate some part of the old HCC's identity.

3. The club's contacts at the venue at which the ICC met (and still meets), when approached about this merger requested that the club maintain the International portion of its name. The club elected to do so.

4. I was neither a trustee of the defunct HCC nor an officebearer of the ICC at the time that this all happened. Indeed, based on what information I can find about the name change, it looks like it occurred immediately before I joined the club (both things happened in mid-1995, at which point my administrative role in chess bar the odd spot of refereeing was zero).

5. I therefore had absolutely nothing to do with the name "Hobart International Chess Club" contrary to PhilD's mostly false claim elsewhere "Bear in mind that we are talking about a weirdo who has christened his local chess playing group as the “HOBART INTERNATIONAL CHESS CLUB”??"
(I say mostly false because I am proud to be a "weirdo" if it means that I am nothing like Phil Donnelly, although I suspect that this conclusion, while hopefully valid in itself, actually does not follow from its premise.)

6. Despite this, I think it is a very good name - not because it gives any false impression of playing strength that Phil (completely missing the point) imagines it to do, but because it is a name that aims to welcome players whatever their background.

I ask Phil to desist absolutely from trolling concerning the name of the HICC.

Oh, as Phil seems to have stopped posting news in this thread, the current state of play in the present BCC tournament is that Alastair Dyer is on a perfect score, juniors Vincent Horton and Charlie Smith and adults Russell Horton and Dylan Kuzmic are doing very well, and Phil Donnelly is still sulking about his missing ratings points and the fact that nobody likes all his silly ideas, and isn't playing.

Kruupy
07-10-2007, 09:54 PM
Well said, and a very interesting read KB.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2007, 10:23 PM
Alastair Dyer has completely demolished the Robert Isted tournament winning it by three and a half points with only one draw conceded from 15 games. Vincent Horton was second and Russell Horton, Charlie Smith and David Hughes tied for third.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2007, 05:47 PM
Neville Ledger has tied for first with Thomas Hendrey on 9/12 in the 22-player Burnie Allegro. Ledger lost one game to Nigel Lewis, who finished third, and had four draws. Hendrey was one of four players given 2/4 in half point byes for missing one of the three night, in his case the first. He then lost to Ledger in round 5 and won his remaining seven games in a row. The field was far from weak with Alastair Dyer (7.5/12 including 2/4 in byes), Peter Lucas (7/12) and Phil Donnelly (6/12) also playing. Time limit was G10/+5. An excellent effort by Neville at a time limit far more suited to the BCC's pack of strong and/or improving juniors.

Mile Pavicic, Alastair Dyer and Vincent Horton tied for first in the club Lightning on 8/10 in an event notable (I guess this is not too unusual for blitz) for having not a single draw out of 10 rounds involving 18 players.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2008, 01:01 PM
In a 500+ point upset, adult Tim Jolly recently defeated reigning club champion and Tasmanian Junior Champion Alastair Dyer in the Burnie Club Championships.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.c3 0-0 8.Nbd2 d5 9.h3 Bb7 10.0-0 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nd5 12.Re1 Re8 13.Bg5 Bxg5
14.Nfxg5 Re7 15.Nc5 Bc8 16.Qf3 e4 17.Rxe4 Ne5 18.Rxe5 Rxe5 19.Nxf7 Rf5 20.Nxd8 1-0

As a result of Dyer's loss, Pavicic now leads with 4/4.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Pavicic unfortunately withdrew for health reasons halfway through having scored 7/8 but having not yet played Alastair Dyer. Dyer has guaranteed himself first position with 14.5/16 but will be tied for the title if Phil Donnelly manages to defeat tailender Jackson Jolly (520) in his final game. (Jolly is on 2/14 with one of his wins a forfeit.)

It is amusing to note that Phil Donnelly has made a public complaint in the other place about the random draw for this tournament, alleging that Dyer had an unfair advantage by having white against all the top seeds while Donnelly had black against all the top seeds except Pavicic (who withdrew).

This is the same Phil Donnelly who publicly supported a ridiculous (and much-ridiculed) tournament condition for the Burnie Shines 2006 that sought to prevent public comment about the event unless authorised by the Burnie Chess Club, supposedly because of a risk that comments made would reflect negatively on that club. In previous discussions, Phil publicly alluded to that condition, which he drafted, being created to restrict one person: me. Yet here Phil is publicly slagging off the direction of one of his own club's tournaments in an act which in my view demonstrates gross inconsistency and double standards given his public support, as yet unretracted, for the BS Weekender 2006 conditions.

Phil's reporting of this matter fails to even note whether a formal protest was made at the announcement of the draw, or whether he made his views known some time into the event. If the latter, then his failure to mention that detail is hardly fair to the organisers, who could hardly be expected to alter the draw of a tournament in progress.

Nevertheless, as a player he deserves congratulations on an excellent result (assuming he wins his last game), performing at over 200 points above his rating in the tournament thus far.

However, when I tried to load his game against Radosavljevic it kept refreshing every fraction of a second as if his site was having an epileptic fit, making the game impossible for me to play through; this occurred using both Firefox and IE!

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 06:22 PM
It is amusing to note that Phil Donnelly has made a public complaint in the other place about the random draw for this tournament, alleging that Dyer had an unfair advantage by having white against all the top seeds while Donnelly had black against all the top seeds except Pavicic (who withdrew).The event is a 17 player round robin.
The random allocation of lot numbers means that what he describes occurring is entirely possible, legal and too anyone with an ounce of intelligence understandable.

Also he is complaining that the colour allocation split for some players is 9 white 7 black whilst for others it is 7 white and 9 black. What he fails to mention is that for some it is 8 white and 8 black. The reason for this also seems fairly obvious to work out.
Instead of the bye being allocated to lot number 18 it has apparently been allocated to lot number 10.
Why this is the case is not discernable from anything he says.
One possible reason is that there was a player allocated to lot number 10 but that they withdrew after round 1 was actually played.

Basil
21-06-2008, 06:31 PM
... and to anyone with an ounce of intelligence understandable.
Ah, now I see the impediment.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 06:51 PM
Something else odd about Phil's coverage is that he keeps suggesting Jackson Jolly is a very inexperienced player (he has said things to this effect on his website at least three times using different words each time). This is not the case at all; Jackson has been playing on and off for three and a half years; he was first listed on the March 2005 rating list after playing at Mt Buller. I remember Jackson playing in the March 2006 Tas Champs in Burnie, which Phil directed. In the June 2005 Tas Open in Burnie (also directed by Phil) I remember Jackson scoring a huge upset win over John Adams rated several hundred points higher, following which the mysterious inscription "Jackson Jolly is a grandmaster!" appeared on the whiteboard in the tournament room. Yet Phil keeps wrongly referring to him as if he is a newbie ... I would expect Phil to know the players in his own region better than that!

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 08:29 PM
Another thing is that Phil claims that Dyer had 9 whites and that all 9 whites were against his top 9 rated opponents based on their ratings at the start of the event. That would make it the December 2007 ratings.

Now this looks like another case of a Donnelly claimed fact not being a fact at all. :whistle:

On what do I make this claim, you may well ask.

I make it based on Phil's own crosstable showing on his own unofficial BCC website which clearly shows that Dyer only had 8 whites against his top 9 opponents based on December 2007 ratings. :doh: :doh: :doh:

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 08:47 PM
Another thing is that Phil claims that Dyer had 9 whites and that all 9 whites were against his top 9 rated opponents based on their ratings at the start of the event. That would make it the December 2007 ratings.

Now this looks like another case of a Donnelly claimed fact not being a fact at all. :whistle:

On what do I make this claim, you may well ask.

I make it based on Phil's own crosstable showing on his own unofficial BCC website which clearly shows that Dyer only had 8 whites against his top 9 opponents based on December 2007 ratings. :doh: :doh: :doh:Perhaps I am making the fatal logic error here amd actually believing what Phils crosstable says at all as I now see from Phil's crosstable that apparently in the game Nigel Lewis V Charlie Smith that both players played black. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 09:29 PM
As I said in a previous post it appears that the tournament was a 17 player round robin with the bye being lot number 10.

Now the lot numbers used for the players appear to be as follows )(based on them being shown in one of the round pairings on Phil's website:

1. Pavicic
2. Hendrey
3. Donnelly
4. Kuzmic, C
5. Hughes
6. Jolly, T
7. Horton, V
8. Jolly, J
9. Harvey
10. BYE
11. Ledger
12. Fifield
13. Horton, R
14. Smith
15. Radosavljevic
16. Kuzmic, D
17. Dyer
18. Lewis

Now if you do the draw using standard Berger tables and then compare the colour allocations to those shown in Phils crosstable there are a number of discrepancies.

The correct colours are shown below but all these games were played with colours reversed if one believes Phil's crosstable.

Round 3
Kuzmic, C - Dyer
Jolly, T - Radosavljecic
Jolly, J - Horton, R

Round 9
Harvey - Pavicic

Round 10
Lewis - Smith

Round 13
Horton, V - Lewis

Round 14
Kuzmic, C - Ledger


The question therefore is are the colours shown in Phil's crosstable wrong or were the games actually played with the wrong colours.

If they were played with the wrong colours then why was that the case.

Garvinator
21-06-2008, 09:33 PM
The question therefore is are the colours shown in Phil's crosstable wrong or were the games actually played with the wrong colours. I know which one of these options I am backin ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 09:34 PM
Actually both his claims about the colours of games played by Dyer and himself are false.

He claims that Dyer was white against the top nine on rating (apart from Dyer) at the start of the event but his crosstable shows Dyer's ninth white was against 13th seed Carey Kuzmic.

He claims that all Donnelly's blacks were against the top part of the field (except the white against Pavicic which was never played), but Donnelly was black against Kevin Hendrey seeded 11th out of 17.

Surely Dyer having white against his eight top-rated opponents (apart from Dyer) and Donnelly having black against seven of his top eight is unusual enough without Donnelly needing to make false statements that slightly overstate the situation.

On this basis it is reasonable to suspect that Donnelly is also responsible for the manipulation of the Tasmanian Open standings on his website as documented here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=200361&postcount=157), as that is an act of a very similar nature whether intentional or otherwise - needlessly stretching a factual detail that didn't need stretching in the first place.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 09:41 PM
If those lot numbers are correct then something very interesting happens if you pick out the top nine rated at the start of the event. I've bolded those nine to illustrate.


1. Pavicic
2. Hendrey
3. Donnelly
4. Kuzmic, C
5. Hughes
6. Jolly, T
7. Horton, V
8. Jolly, J
9. Harvey
10. BYE
11. Ledger
12. Fifield
13. Horton, R
14. Smith
15. Radosavljevic
16. Kuzmic, D
17. Dyer
18. Lewis

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 09:44 PM
I suspect we shouldnt go holding our breath waiting for Phil to thank us for setting the record straight and pointing out his errors.

Bill Gletsos
21-06-2008, 09:48 PM
If those lot numbers are correct then something very interesting happens if you pick out the top nine rated at the start of the event. I've bolded those nine to illustrate.That is interesting.
It could of course have happened by sheer chance but it makes me wonder by what method the numbers were allocated.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 10:47 PM
That is interesting.
It could of course have happened by sheer chance

If I've got this right the odds of the two halves of an 18-player draw appearing alternately by random draw are:

9/17*1/2*8/15*1/2*7/13*1/2*6/11*1/2*5/9*1/2*4/7*1/2*3/5*1/2*2/3*1/2

= 1/24310.

As I noted in the shoutbox it looks like the draw was split in two halves with players drawn alternately from the halves, but I am seeking confirmation, as it could have happened randomly (albeit at the indicated odds.)

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2008, 12:01 AM
Phil's crosstable has yet another error.

It shows Vincent Horton with a score of 5.5 and having played a total of 13 games, yet if you add up his score he has 6.5 and has played 14 games.

Now back in 2006 Phil's Excel spreadsheet for that years Burnie club championship also suffered from inconsistencies.

It doesnt look like things have changed much. :whistle:

Basil
22-06-2008, 12:05 AM
Phil's crosstable has yet another error.
I assume this means Phil is a liar? I think that's the logic being used to convict Kev over in the WC :wall:

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2008, 12:13 AM
How many errors does a Donnelly document need before we can call it a m*ss without Phil claiming we're defaming him? :rolleyes:

Basil
22-06-2008, 12:19 AM
How many errors does a Donnelly document need before we can call it a m*ss without Phil claiming we're defaming him? :rolleyes:
As I said, I believe the answer is 'one' and you can call him a liar :wall: Of course you can ignore that ridiculous proposition as purported by his bozo mate and simply call him a dribbler. Of course, the cringers might term that as bullying and so we can simply settle with hopelessly inept. Is that fair?

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2008, 12:23 AM
As I said, I believe the answer is 'one' and you can call him a liar :wall: Of course you can ignore that ridiculous proposition as purported by his bozo mate and simply call him a dribbler. Of course, the cringers might term that as bullying and so we can simply settle with hopelessly inept. Is that fair?No doubt our postings here will lead to an increase in their leading thread over there.
In fact even the God thread runs a poor second over there. :whistle:

Basil
22-06-2008, 12:26 AM
No doubt our postings here will lead to an increase in their leading thread over there.
In fact even the God thread runs a poor second over there. :whistle:
No doubt. But I'm not offering any new think. I'm simply applying their own actual bozo think to their own actions.

Aaron Guthrie
22-06-2008, 01:18 AM
If I've got this right the odds of the two halves of an 18-player draw appearing alternately by random draw are:

9/17*1/2*8/15*1/2*7/13*1/2*6/11*1/2*5/9*1/2*4/7*1/2*3/5*1/2*2/3*1/2

= 1/24310.I get the same result as you, and via this method (9/18*8/17... divide final result by 2).

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2008, 02:12 AM
Neat. Your method shows more lateral thinking than my ugly lazy brute-force number crunching. :P

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2008, 04:04 PM
The draw was not actually split in two halves so it looks like it was simply a freak event!

Tony Dowden
22-06-2008, 07:48 PM
Well done Alastair Dyer! Retaining the Burnie Chess Club title is a wonderful achievement. :clap: :clap:

And best of luck to Phil Donnelly to gain a share of the title (for the first time?) It looks like he has forced the Burnie juniors to hand back some precious rating points ;)

While some of the discussion in the thread above is a little bewildering if not outright arcane to the likes of me as a non-expert :confused: I agree that the claim on the Burnie CC website that Vincent Horton 'swept' through the 2008 Tasmanian Open field was an unnecessary exaggeration.

In my game against Vincent I managed to make two very serious blunders (perhaps my worst on Tasmanian soil - the evils of three gruelling rounds in one day :wall: :wall: ) yet I still drew the game because he simply didn't have the technique to win. I don't say this to belittle Vincent :hand: - he is clearly an exceptional talent - but at 12 years old he isn't wiping the floor with 2000+ players just yet!

Tony Dowden
22-06-2008, 07:53 PM
Does anyone know why this thread has 'International' inserted in the name of the Burnie Chess Club?

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2008, 08:50 PM
Does anyone know why this thread has 'International' inserted in the name of the Burnie Chess Club?

Yes, it was Phil attempting to take the mickey out of the use of "International" in the name "Hobart International Chess Club".

From his various comments about the matter here and there, Phil has been under the false impressions that (i) the use of "International" in the Hobart club's name is some kind of deliberate act of pretentious hype and (ii) I personally coined the "International" in the Hobart club's name (he has explicitly claimed the latter).

In fact, as discussed in post 86 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=170175&postcount=86) of this thread, the HICC name comes from a merger between the old International Club and the old Hobart club at a time when I was not actively involved in chess administration, and the retention of "International" was strongly supported by staff at our venue at the time of that merger.

Despite these facts being pointed out (and it seems he reads this thread as the error in Vincent Horton's score pointed out by Bill has already been fixed), Phil continues with this strange habit of misnaming his own club to try to take the mickey out of ours - he did it again just yesterday!

Bill Gletsos
22-06-2008, 09:02 PM
Despite these facts being pointed out (and it seems he reads this thread as the error in Vincent Horton's score pointed out by Bill has already been fixed), Phil continues with this strange habit of misnaming his own club to try to take the mickey out of ours - he did it again just yesterday!I see where he also fixed up the error I mentioned in post #96 regarding the Lewis - Smith game.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 12:53 AM
However, when I tried to load his game against Radosavljevic it kept refreshing every fraction of a second as if his site was having an epileptic fit, making the game impossible for me to play through; this occurred using both Firefox and IE!

Pressing "stop" prevents the page from continually reloading and allows one to play through the game although how much of the text box you get is a lottery.

Tony Dowden
24-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Yes, it was Phil attempting to take the mickey out of the use of "International" in the name "Hobart International Chess Club".

From his various comments about the matter here and there, Phil has been under the false impressions that (i) the use of "International" in the Hobart club's name is some kind of deliberate act of pretentious hype and (ii) I personally coined the "International" in the Hobart club's name (he has explicitly claimed the latter).

In fact, as discussed in post 86 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=170175&postcount=86) of this thread, the HICC name comes from a merger between the old International Club and the old Hobart club at a time when I was not actively involved in chess administration, and the retention of "International" was strongly supported by staff at our venue at the time of that merger.

Despite these facts being pointed out (and it seems he reads this thread as the error in Vincent Horton's score pointed out by Bill has already been fixed), Phil continues with this strange habit of misnaming his own club to try to take the mickey out of ours - he did it again just yesterday!

Oh. I see ...

Actually, I thought it was common knowledge that the HICC name came from the merger.

Tony Dowden
03-07-2008, 10:54 AM
Evergreen North West Tasmanian player Phil Donnelly has won his final game in the 2008 Burnie Club championship, thereby gaining a share of his club title for the first time :clap: :clap:

Donnelly finished level on 14.5 points out of 16 with defending champion Alastair Dyer.

Dyer convincingly beat Donnelly in their individual game (worth a look if you visit the Burnie Chess Club site) but then lost a miserable brevity early in the event to Tim Jolly. Although Dyer then set a scorching pace he was unable to breach the solid defence of former Tasmanian state champion Neville Ledger.

In turn Donnelly recovered from his loss to Dyer to beat everyone else in the field except for Dylan Kuzmic - of whom (in one for the books) juniors Vincent Horton and Dyer have informed me is a dangerous and much under-rated adult player :lol:

Donnelly has revealed that his successful 2008 campaign was his ninth attempt to win his club championship since 2000, so full marks for persistence Phil :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2008, 12:02 AM
I see where Phil Donnely once again has an error in his crosstable for the Burnie Club Championship where he shows the game Nigel Lewis V Dragan Radosavljevic as a win for both players. :doh: :doh: :doh:

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2009, 10:07 PM
In the battle of the reigning co-champions Alastair Dyer has defeated Phil Donnelly in a rather messy encounter. Alastair played a Schliemann line which Phil, not really up with the latest trends in the opening, didn't know a thing about and ended up a pawn down with no real compensation. Alastair was having lots of fun until dropping the exchange to a fork, which should have let Phil back into the game. However Alastair maintained a strong position and despite missing one crushing win (23...Rxe5) finished up in a favourable endgame which he won very easily.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.0-0 fxe4 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Ng5 Bf5 8.Qe1 Qd4 9.Ne2 Qd5 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.b3 Bc5 12.Bb2 0-0 13.c4 Qd3 14.Ne6 Bb6 15.c5 Ba5 16.Nxf8 Bxd2 17.Qe2 Rxf8 18.Qxd3 exd3 19.Bxe5 Bb4 20.Rac1 d2 21.Rc4 Nd5 22.Rd1 Re8 23.Rxb4 Nxb4 24.Bc3 Re1+ 25.Rxe1 dxe1=Q+ 26.Bxe1 Nxa2 27.Bd2 Kf7 28.f4 Bc2 29.b4 Ke6 30.Kf2 Kd5 31.Nh5 g6 32.Nf6+ Kc4 33.Nxh7 Nxb4 34.Bxb4 Kxb4 35.g4 a5 0-1

From Tas Championships thread:


Phil's comments implied he thought he'd been crushed but I thought White's position went from dead lost out of the (bizarre) opening to virtually winning at one point. For instance without looking at it in too much detail 17.Nxg6!? looks like a winning try.

17-year-old Alastair Dyer is one of Tasmania's most talented players but sometimes he seems to be enjoying himself too much!

Chess is about winning as boringingly as possible - just watch Kamsky take out Topalov ...

17.Nxg6 Bxe1 and black has queen for rook and piece if the smoke clears without any further loss of material. It seems to do so because 18.Nxe5 Qc2! 19.Nc4 Bd2 and black should be able to get away but white still has a fair bit of activity. Fritz calls it about -1 but for practical purposes it could go either way.

What I found strange in Phil's annotations, most of which I agreed with, is that he covers most of the game in detail but then blurs over the ending in a few sentences as if it was always going to be an easy win for black, but that's actually not the case at all. He writes after W27 "The knight is grounded for the moment but what is critical in this position is that the black king is closer to the action, in particular the 2 white qside pawns."

Not really; white could have played, but didn't see, the very obvious plan of 28.Ne2 then Nc1 swapping off knights (or the same idea on move 30) and reaching an OCB position where he can play b4 and Bd2 making it surprisingly hard for black's 4-2 q-side pawn majority to actually count for anything at all, nearby king or not. Basically, the most promising way black can get through is by pushing ...b6 and exchanging on c5. But meanwhile white can throw pawns up the kingside and activate his king. The white bishop holds the a and c pawns by itself and if the black king gets too involved then white becomes dangerous on the kingside.

I'm not saying this would definitely have drawn for Phil with best play but it certainly makes it much much harder for Alastair to win than what was played.

It's possible that 27...Bd3 would have been objectively better for Alastair specifically because it would have frustrated the OCB plan long enough for the black king to become much more active. But as it happened Phil missed the plan and it was all over quickly.

Without knowing for sure I'd suspect the reason for Phil's quick capitulation in a far from hopeless endgame was time trouble rather than lack of ability, although had Phil been the positional whiz he likes to think he is, he would have seen all the very common theme of defending by reaching an OCB ending in about three of our earth seconds. :D

Zwischenzug
18-02-2009, 10:18 PM
The pgn viewer above needs fixing...

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2009, 10:24 PM
Fixed - it was the usual =Q bug again.

Zwischenzug
18-02-2009, 11:03 PM
Thanks Kev.

Tony Dowden
19-02-2009, 08:04 PM
17.Nxg6 Bxe1 and black has queen for rook and piece

Good point: its rook and one poiece - not rook and two pieces :lol:

I hadn't got to the point of conducting actual analysis of the I go there he goes there variety (boy I'm geting lazy in my dotage!)

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2009, 03:48 AM
I heard indirectly that Alastair Dyer has won the Burnie Club Champs for the third year in a row (one shared), undefeated but with about two draws, with last year's co-champion Phil Donnelly close behind.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2009, 08:56 PM
There is a new BCC blog page run by Russell Horton up at http://nwtaschess.blogspot.com .

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2009, 12:09 AM
This year's Robert Isted round robin is nearly finished and has been very close in the absence of the BCC's highest-rated regularly active player Alastair Dyer. From what I can discern from last week's crosstable*, plus Phil Donnelly's comments about this week's games, I think that Vincent Horton and Phil Donnelly are effectively equal leading with 2.5 points dropped each, though Vincent may have more games still to play than Phil. David Hughes has led for much of the event but lost to Vincent Horton this week so has now dropped 3.

*It was posted, albeit unformatted, in comments on the BCC blog, contrary to the apparent impression of the Agatha Christie fan elsewhere. :D

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 09:01 PM
Vincent Horton eventually won the Isted (mentioned in post above) by one point over Phil Donnelly.

This year's BCC Champs has been weakened somewhat by the absences of Alastair Dyer and Vincent Horton from the field but has nonetheless been a strongly contested event from what I can tell. According to the BCC site Phil Donnelly won 8/10 with Kevin Hendrey second on 7.5. Peter Lucas, who has in the past been rated as high as #3 in the state, played but was evidently still rusty as he dropped a few points early in the tournament and wasn't an outright threat.

Tony Dowden
11-05-2010, 10:44 PM
Congratulations Vincent :clap: :clap:

Either I'm getting older or these juniors are getting younger - I lost to the even younger Mason Carter in a rapid earlier tonight. (Mental note: eat dinner before taking on these super heroes)

Adamski
13-05-2010, 12:33 AM
Congratulations Vincent :clap: :clap:

(Mental note: eat dinner before taking on these super heroes)That is definitely a good idea, Tony!

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2010, 10:13 PM
From what I can tell on the BCC blog Vincent Horton won the Robert Isted this year on what I believe to have been 8/10 (two losses) from Reg Harvey on 7 and Russell Horton on 6.

Tony Dowden
09-10-2010, 01:46 PM
Mods: How about removing the confusing 'International' from the thread title?

Tony Dowden
09-10-2010, 01:47 PM
From what I can tell on the BCC blog Vincent Horton won the Robert Isted this year on what I believe to have been 8/10 (two losses) from Reg Harvey on 7 and Russell Horton on 6.
Well done Vincent :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2010, 02:16 PM
Mods: How about removing the confusing 'International' from the thread title?

That was put there by Phil in the deluded belief that the "International" in HICC was a case of me big-noting my own club (when in fact the name had nothing to do with me and nothing to do with big-noting either).

I agree that error has passed its use-by date and should not reflect on the current club so I've retitled it.

Tony Dowden
09-10-2010, 06:25 PM
That was put there by Phil in the deluded belief that the "International" in HICC was a case of me big-noting my own club (when in fact the name had nothing to do with me and nothing to do with big-noting either).

I agree that error has passed its use-by date and should not reflect on the current club so I've retitled it.

Thanks Kevin :)

You'll have to get around to big-noting your club sometime then ;)

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2011, 11:38 AM
David Hughes is the 2011 Burnie Club Champion.

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2011, 05:52 PM
Full scores were

8/10 David Hughes
7 Carey Kuzmic, Dragan Radosavljevic
6.5 Fred Duiker
6 Russell Horton
5 Dylan Kuzmic
4.5 Nigel Lewis, Reg Harvey
3.5 Neville Ledger
2 Zen Zero
1 Lenard Lange

Top seed Phil Donnelly with a win against Zen Zero and a loss to Russell Horton was a withdrawal, reasons unknown to me.

Tony Dowden
23-05-2011, 08:05 PM
Full scores were

8/10 David Hughes
7 Carey Kuzmic, Dragan Radosavljevic
6.5 Fred Duiker
6 Russell Horton
5 Dylan Kuzmic
4.5 Nigel Lewis, Reg Harvey
3.5 Neville Ledger
2 Zen Zero
1 Lenard Lange

Top seed Phil Donnelly with a win against Zen Zero and a loss to Russell Horton was a withdrawal, reasons unknown to me.

Congratulations to David :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2011, 12:49 AM
The Burnie blog site was updated a few weeks ago showing partial results of the Lindsay Atkinson, a round-robin rapid with 12 players (including a few juniors) currently in progress. At the time Reg Harvey was on 5/5; Reg won another rapid there in the last year or two with a picket-fence score. I'm expecting the event to finish in September sometime.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2011, 10:30 PM
The Lindsay Atkinson rapid was won by Reg Harvey 9/11 from Dragan Radosavljevic 8. The just concluded Robert Isted (60/+10) was won by Nigel Lewis and Russell Horton 9/12 with David Hughes third on 8.5. Seems to be very even and unpredictable competition at the club these days with most of the players in the 1400-1600 range and a few below that.

ER
17-12-2011, 08:38 AM
Which night of the week does the Club meet? Thanks in advance!

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2011, 10:56 AM
Wednesday, 6:45-10:30, Havenview Primary School, Marriott St, Havenview

Contact: Neville Ledger
(03) 64 311280
NLChess@tassie.net.au

Tony Dowden
17-12-2011, 12:20 PM
The Lindsay Atkinson rapid was won by Reg Harvey 9/11 from Dragan Radosavljevic 8. The just concluded Robert Isted (60/+10) was won by Nigel Lewis and Russell Horton 9/12 with David Hughes third on 8.5. Seems to be very even and unpredictable competition at the club these days with most of the players in the 1400-1600 range and a few below that.

Where did you get this info from KB? (It does seem to be on any website). Also wondering if Alastair played, as his rating went down.

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Where did you get this info from KB? (It does seem to be on any website).

I am acting TCA ratings officer so I get the files for tournament results when they are finished.


Also wondering if Alastair played, as his rating went down.

No. I believe he played an event outside Tasmania.

Tony Dowden
17-12-2011, 03:32 PM
I am acting TCA ratings officer so I get the files for tournament results when they are finished.



No. I believe he played an event outside Tasmania.

Thanks Kevin

ER
21-12-2011, 12:50 AM
Wednesday, 6:45-10:30, Havenview Primary School, Marriott St, Havenview

Contact: Neville Ledger
(03) 64 311280
NLChess@tassie.net.au

Thanks Kev, I might be able to visit while in Devonport!

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2012, 05:36 PM
Russell Horton won the 2012 Burnie Club Championships with 7/9 - two draws and a loss to Neville Ledger.

Tony Dowden
11-06-2012, 10:47 PM
Russell Horton won the 2012 Burnie Club Championships with 7/9 - two draws and a loss to Neville Ledger.

Well done Russell, who has had a good run this year: first with a placing in the Tassie Ch'p, and now the Burnie (outright) and Open (shared) titles :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2014, 09:08 AM
Congrats to Ian Rout who has completely dominated the Burnie Club Championships, winning with 8.5/9 ahead of Reg Harvey 7 Peter Lucas, Denis McMahon and Dylan Kuzmic 5.5 David Hughes and Neville Ledger 3.5 Russell Horton 3 Nigel Lewis 2.5 and Paul Lovric 0.5. Ian's sole draw was with Denis McMahon.

James Peirce
21-08-2014, 10:22 AM
Did Rout already know about the December chess tournament before he came to Tassie? Looks like the club championship is just the warm-up.

Tony Dowden
21-08-2014, 08:02 PM
Congrats to Ian Rout who has completely dominated the Burnie Club Championships ...
Well done Ian :) I hope you are enjoying living in Tassie.

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2015, 07:11 PM
Burnie club has a Facebook page of which I was previously unaware:

https://www.facebook.com/burniechessclub.tca

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2015, 12:33 AM
Congrats again to Ian Rout who has again won the Burnie championships comfortably with 6.5/7 from Peter Lucas 5 Fred Duiker 4.5 Russell Horton 4 Dylan Kuzmic 3.5 Reg Harvey 3 Nigel Lewis 1.5 (including Ian's only draw) and Paul Lovric 0. (Paul was outrated by >400 points in every game so credit to him for going the distance.)

Ian Rout
31-07-2015, 11:44 AM
Congrats again to Ian Rout who has again won the Burnie championships comfortably with 6.5/7 from Peter Lucas 5 Fred Duiker 4.5 Russell Horton 4 Dylan Kuzmic 3.5 Reg Harvey 3 Nigel Lewis 1.5 (including Ian's only draw) and Paul Lovric 0. (Paul was outrated by >400 points in every game so credit to him for going the distance.)In fairness it should be pointed out that I won against Dylan Kuzmic from a position which was dead lost, and at the point he resigned was still a technical draw.

Kuzmic
22-06-2016, 02:09 PM
Hi Everyone,

I thought I'd start a Burnie Chess Club thread on Chess Chat as the hasn't been one before to fill you in on what the club has been doing. I'll try to update it once a week.

The Burnie Chess Club meets on Wednesday night from 6pm, with tournament games starting at 7pm. We meet at the Havenview Primary School which is in Marriott Street, Burnie.

Kuzmic
22-06-2016, 02:21 PM
Two weeks ago the Burnie Chess Club finished their 2016 Club Championship. Ian Rout won the tournament for the third straight year. He won without dropping a game. It was an excellent effort. Reg Harvey finished second, and Fred Duiker and Nigel Lewis were tied for third place. The crosstable for the tournament is as follows.
3157

Ian still has a ways to go catch club legend Neville Ledger on the overall club champions list but is well on his way there.

Club Champions since 1960 (and how many titles they've won:
N. Ledger 15
S. Browne 12
R. Harvey 7
D. Radosavljevic 5
I. Rout 3
A. Dyer 3
P. Lucas 3
B. Barnes 2
P. Donnelly 2
R. Horton 2
A. Flitney 1
S. Harvey 1
M. Rand 1
A. Todd 1
M. Pavicic 1
D. Hughes 1

Congratulations again Ian and keep up the good work.

Kuzmic
22-06-2016, 02:22 PM
Tonight the Burnie Chess Club will begin it's annual Robert Isted Memorial Tournament. Time for this tournament is 60 mins + 10 seconds. All players intending to enter come along tonight at 6:30pm to register for a 7pm start. If you can't make it tonight but would still like to enter let me know so I can add you to the draw. Hope to see you all tonight.

idledim
22-06-2016, 03:09 PM
Well Done, Dylan - i've subscribed to the Burnie thread and look forward to being a bit more 'in the loop.'

phyrexianrook
26-06-2016, 10:19 PM
I've added a link from the Burnie Chess Club home page on the TCA site to this forum.

Kuzmic
05-07-2016, 01:45 PM
There are only 6 entrants in this years Robert Isted Memorial Tournament.

Dylan Kuzmic
Carey Kuzmic
Reg Harvey
Fred Duiker
Leon Rice
Nigel Lewis.

There have been absentees over the first two weeks for various reasons. The results for these weeks are as follows.
Week 1
D. Kuzmic .5-.5 F. Duiker
C. Kuzmic 0-1 N. Lewis

Week 2
L. Rice 0-1 C. Kuzmic
N. Lewis 0-1 R. Harvey

For week 3 the match ups will be D. Kuzmic vs C. Kuzmic and L. Rice vs N. Lewis. Fred and Reg will both be absent.

We will still accept entrants this week as Fred and Reg have only played one game each. Otherwise friendly matches can be played by other players until the next tournament begins.

Kuzmic
03-08-2016, 02:08 PM
Tonight the Burnie Chess Club will kick off it's second round of the Robert Isted Memorial Tournament. A couple of weeks back it was decided that we would have a double round tournament as Leon Rice has withdrew and there were only 5 in the tournament. At the half way point the standings are as follows:

Fred Duiker 3.5/4.
Reg Harvey 2/4.
Nigel Lewis 1.5/4.
Dylan Kuzmic 1/3.
Carey Kuzmic 1/3.

Carey and myself have a catch up game which we will complete this week. The rounds have went like this......

R1. Fred bye
Nigel 0-1 Reg
Dylan - Carey

R2. Nigel Bye
Fred 1-0 Carey
Reg 1-0 Dylan

R3. Dylan Bye
Nigel 0-1 Fred
Carey 1-0 Reg

R4. Carey bye
Fred 1-0 Reg
Nigel .5-.5 Dylan

R5. Reg Bye
Dylan .5-.5 Fred
Carey 0-1 Nigel

Last week Carey had his first win for the tournament with a victory over Reg, and Fred had another strong win defeating Nigel and is racing away as tournament leader. This week's match ups are Dylan vs Reg, Carey vs Fred, and Nigel with the bye. These games will commence at 7pm. Doors open at 6pm for new comers and those who just wish to play friendly games. See you there.

idledim
11-09-2016, 03:28 PM
Burnie team for the Ledger?

Kuzmic
21-09-2016, 02:38 PM
The final match of the Robert Isted Memorial Tournament was played this morning so I can put up the results. This years winner was Nigel Lewis. This is the 3rd time Nigel has won the tournament. At the half way point of the tournament Nigel sat in 4th place and didn't look a chance but he won his final 4 games in a row and took out the tournament one whole point clear of the pack. Well done Nigel!!!

The final standings are as follows:
Nigel Lewis 5.5/8.
Fred Duiker 4.5/8.
Dylan Kuzmic 4/8.
Carey Kuzmic 3/8.
Reg Harvey 3/8.

The rounds have went like this......

R1. Fred bye
Nigel 0-1 Reg
Dylan 1-0 Carey

R2. Nigel Bye
Fred 1-0 Carey
Reg 1-0 Dylan

R3. Dylan Bye
Nigel 0-1 Fred
Carey 1-0 Reg

R4. Carey bye
Fred 1-0 Reg
Nigel .5-.5 Dylan

R5. Reg Bye
Dylan .5-.5 Fred
Carey 0-1 Nigel

R6. Fred Bye
Reg 0-1 Nigel
Carey 0-1 Dylan

R7. Nigel Bye
Carey 1-0 Fred
Dylan 1-0 Reg

R8. Dylan Bye
Fred 0-1 Nigel
Reg 0-1 Carey

R9. Carey Bye.
Reg 1-0 Fred
Dylan 0-1 Nigel

R10. Reg Bye.
Fred 1-0 Dylan
Nigel 1-0 Carey

Kuzmic
21-09-2016, 02:42 PM
3226
2016 Robert Isted Memorial Champion Nigel Lewis

idledim
21-09-2016, 10:53 PM
Well Done, Nigel! (Please pass it on, Dylan - Thanks.)

Ian Rout
22-09-2016, 04:14 PM
Congratulations to Nigel on his big win.

While this thread is active we should also mention Burnie winning the second leg of the Ledger Challenge 4-1 over Devenport, a combined score of 7.5-2.5, as already reported on the DCC thread. Here is the exciting Board 1 encounter.

I. Rout - D. McMahon
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nbd7 4. g3 e5 5. Nge2 exd4 6. Nxd4 c6 7. Bg2 h6 8.
O-O Qc7 9. a4 a5 10. Kh1 Be7 11. Nf5 g5 12. f4 g4 13. e5 dxe5 14. Nxe7 Kxe7 15.
fxe5 Nxe5 16. Bf4 Be6 17. Qd4 Nfd7 18. Rae1 f6 19. Ne4 Rad8 20. Nxf6 Qb6 21.
Bxe5 c5 22. Nd5+ Ke8 23. Nxb6 cxd4 24. Bxh8 Nxb6 25. Rxe6+ 1-0
Although of only marginal significance, the sacrifice is sound and good according to the metal monster.

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2016, 08:03 PM
At the half way point of the tournament Nigel sat in 4th place and didn't look a chance but he won his final 4 games in a row and took out the tournament one whole point clear of the pack. Well done Nigel!!!

Three of those wins with black too! Some comeback!

Kuzmic
12-10-2016, 12:34 PM
Tonight the Burnie Chess Club will resume after a two week break. We will begin our annual Allegro tournament. Time limit is 15 mins flat. This tournament will see former Club Champion Dragan enter his first tournament at the club in about 4 years. Those who wish to enter try and be there by 6:45pm for a 7pm start. If you wish to enter the tournament but can't make it tonight let me know so I can add you to the draw. Hope to see everyone there.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2017, 09:56 PM
I've heard that Reg Harvey has won the Burnie Club Champs for the first time in something like 23 years with 5.5/6, drawing with Ian Rout and beating his other five opponents.

James Peirce
14-04-2020, 09:11 PM
Chesschat thread for the new TCA chess.com club
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?18000-TCA-chess-com-Club