PDA

View Full Version : NSWCA May Weekender



Bill Gletsos
13-05-2004, 07:20 PM
The NSWCA MAY Weekender is a category 2 Grand Prix event with guaranteed $1500 IN PRIZES, at our scenic Rose Bay venue.


Where:
Rose Bay RSL Club (catch bus 324 or 325 from Edgecliff station or city)

When:
Saturday 15th / Sunday 16th May

Director:
Lee Forace

Time Control:
60 minutes + 10 seconds per move

Entry Fees:
Adult: $70.00 Junior [u/18]: $55.00 Junior [u/15]: $40.00
Register by Friday 14th for $10 discount . Entries will be accepted on the day.

Schedule:

Saturday
9:30-10am Registration; 10:30 Round 1; 1:30 round 2; 4:00 Round 3;

Sunday
10:30 Round 4; 1:30 round 5; 4:00 round 6; 6:30pm presentation

Prizes:
Open: 1st $600 2nd $300 3rd $200

U2000 1st $200, U1800 1st $200, U1600 1st $200, U1400, 1st $200.

Lucena
16-05-2004, 10:43 PM
Well there goes another depressing tournament for me :eek: :doh: At least I avoided losing against Raymond (grumble grumble bloody juniors grumble grumble grumble). I had a funny experience before the 1st round game-telling Gary Losh what to do against e4 and then finding out I had to play him, with white :uhoh:

Top 3 placings as far as I know are:

5.5-Xie
5-Canfell, Raymond Song

As for the other prizewinners, I left early :uhoh: I will post an
interesting position (not mine) on this thread if I remember later on.

PHAT
16-05-2004, 11:32 PM
Imagine a player being allowed to play only 3 out of 6 rounds, being granted 2 half point byes a and forfeit then scoring 2.5/6 to win first prize in the U1400 ahead of someone who had two real wins.

DOPs = DOPES

Lucena
16-05-2004, 11:35 PM
Imagine a player being allowed to play only 3 out of 6 rounds, being granted 2 half point byes a and forfeit then scoring 2.5/6 to win first prize in the U1400 ahead of someone who had two real wins.

DOPs = DOPES

Did this actually happen in the tournament or are you describing a hypothetical situation?

PHAT
16-05-2004, 11:37 PM
It happen today.

Lucena
17-05-2004, 12:03 AM
It happen today.

Crikey. By the way, what will you do at Common Man to avoid byes happening?

PHAT
17-05-2004, 12:24 AM
what will you do at Common Man to avoid byes happening?

There will be a "stand in player" to eliminate any bye that occures due to an odd number of players entering or a withdrawal. The game will be a real rated game. In the past, and this time, it will be me :D. It is only my fellow bottom end players who have to worry about Sweeney. Only Sweeney has to worry about playing even worse due to divided attention - running the show and playing a game :( Bob Keast also does this.

Hugh Cook
17-05-2004, 07:13 AM
Imagine a player being allowed to play only 3 out of 6 rounds, being granted 2 half point byes a and forfeit then scoring 2.5/6 to win first prize in the U1400 ahead of someone who had two real wins.

DOPs = DOPES This player has been active in local tournaments and shouldn't be hampered from playing due to other commitments.

jay_vee
17-05-2004, 07:55 AM
If you are giving out prizes to players who score below 50% (which is obviously often the case with U1400 or similar prizes), to allow 2 half-point byes in a 6-round tournament seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? Every U1400 player who does not take the two byes effectively lowers his chances at a prize, because he would not otherwise be expected to score 1 out of the two games. And why would you want a tournament system to encourage players to take byes?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 01:10 PM
Imagine a player being allowed to play only 3 out of 6 rounds, being granted 2 half point byes a and forfeit then scoring 2.5/6 to win first prize in the U1400 ahead of someone who had two real wins.

DOPs = DOPES
Actually you post is misleading.
There is an implication the player gained a point on forfeit. This is not true.
He was given a half point bye for round 1, a half point bye for round 2 and a zero point bye for round 3.
In other words he did not play on day 1.
He played 3 games on day 2 and scored 1.5/3.

Also I think you should point out your own vested interest here since you were one of two players rated under 1400 who had 2 "real" wins.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 01:18 PM
Crikey. By the way, what will you do at Common Man to avoid byes happening?
Actually there were no real byes in the tournament due to lack of an opponent.
On day one there were 42 players.
Therefore everyone got a game in rounds 1 and 2. In round 3 one player forfeited.
This player did not play on day 2 but there was a late entry on day 2.
Therefore on day 2 all players again got a game in rounds 4, 5 and 6.

ursogr8
17-05-2004, 01:38 PM
If you are giving out prizes to players who score below 50% (which is obviously often the case with U1400 or similar prizes), to allow 2 half-point byes in a 6-round tournament seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

The problem, of prizes being won from a less than 50% score, can be avoided by running the tournament as two Divisions and allowing intermingling as described many times before.

Ian Rout
17-05-2004, 02:22 PM
I played in this event - pretty badly, except for one game, so it's good to see the spotlight being on the controversies rather than the worst performances.

It seems to me that the outcome described by Matthew is a combination of a number of factors, notably only six rounds, giving less opportunity for oddities to be smoothed out, and a combination of prize structure and field composition which enabled the prize to be won with a modest score.

Although jay vee is right that two half-byes out of six rounds is relatively high, if a player took two zero-point byes they would get a reasonably soft round three game and probably go to 1/3 and the same outcome could eventuate (in the general case, though in this instance the player missed Round 3 too), so I think the other factors made a greater contribution.

Perhaps if somebody posted the cross-table we could draw conclusions about whether the two "real" wins were more meritorious than the real outcome.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 02:29 PM
No Name Rtg Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Xie, George 2297 5.5 20:W 12:W 10:W 5:W 2:W 4:D
2 Canfell, Gregory J 2281 5 22:W 34:W 7:W 6:W 1:L 8:W
3 Song, Raymond 1843 5 23:W 39:W 4:D 7:D 19:W 6:W
4 Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper 2236 4.5 17:W 16:W 3:D 9:W 5:D 1:D
5 Joyce, John 2270 2270 4 24:W 13:W 11:W 1:L 4:D 7:D
6 Chan, Jason 1957 4 21:W 41:W 9:W 2:L 12:W 3:L
7 Charles, Gareth 2106 4 28:W 27:W 2:L 3:D 21:W 5:D
8 Kevork, Chris 1855 4 15:L 32:W 20:W 16:W 13:W 2:L
9 Samar, Raul 2139 4 35:W 19:W 6:L 4:L 25:W 14:W
10 Bolens, Johny 2029 4 18:W 33:W 1:L 19:L 23:W 24:W
11 Harp, Joel 1965 4 30:W 15:W 5:L 13:L 27:W 20:W
12 Rachmadi, Herman 1756 4 38:W 1:L 30:W 26:W 6:L 19:W
13 Descallar, Levi 1746 3.5 37:W 5:L 35:W 11:W 8:L 17:D
14 Rout, Ian C 1932 3.5 33:L 23:W 17:W 27:D 15:W 9:L
15 Art, Carl 1448 3.5 8:W 11:L 31:D 22:W 14:L 34:W
16 Mendes da Costa, Alex 1717 3.5 43:W 4:L 33:W 8:L 18:D 28:W
17 Illingworth, Max 1597 3.5 4:L 43:W 14:L 39:W 26:W 13:D
18 Reid, Vaness 1516 3.5 10:L 31:L 40:W 32:W 16:D 27:W
19 Clark, Domenic 1729 3 40:W 9:L 36:W 10:W 3:L 12:L
20 Watharow, Sean P 1631 3 1:L 37:W 8:L 35:W 31:W 11:L
21 Dick, Graham 1539 3 6:L 42:W 34:W 31:D 7:L 22:D
22 Song, Angela 1655 3 2:L 28:D 41:W 15:L 33:W 21:D
23 Pickering, Anthony 1528 3 3:L 14:L 43:W 41:W 10:L 32:W
24 Keuning, Anthony V 1635 3 5:L 35:L 28:W 38:W 34:W 10:L
25 Nicholson, Scott 1566 3 32:L 36:L 37:W 29:W 9:L 31:W
26 Low, Frank 1640 3 41:L 38:W 32:W 12:L 17:L 36:W
27 Escribano, Jose 1654 2.5 42:W 7:L 39:W 14:D 11:L 18:L
28 Losh, Gary 1520 2.5 7:L 22:D 24:L 37:W 36:W 16:L
29 Miranda, Adrian 1351 2.5 0:D 0:D 0:L 25:L 30:D 43:W
30 Greenwood, Norman 1540 2.5 11:L 40:W 12:L 36:L 29:D 41:W
31 Baterowicz, Mark 1709 2 39:L 18:W 15:D 21:D 20:L 25:L
32 Evans, Carrie 2 25:W 8:L 26:L 18:L 43:W 23:L
33 Bisson, Danny Wayne 1489 2 14:W 10:L 16:L 34:L 22:L 35:W
34 Javor, Stephen 1754 2 36:W 2:L 21:L 33:W 24:L 15:L
35 Nichas, John 1428 2 9:L 24:W 13:L 20:L 41:W 33:L
36 Cohn, Jason 1328 2 34:L 25:W 19:L 30:W 28:L 26:L
37 Sweeney, Matthew 1283 2 13:L 20:L 25:L 28:L 40:W 38:W
38 Tracey, Michael J 1435 1.5 12:L 26:L 42:+ 24:L 39:D 37:L
39 Adler, David 1305 1.5 31:W 3:L 27:L 17:L 38:D 40:L
40 Eales, Jonathon 1110 1.5 19:L 30:L 18:L 43:D 37:L 39:W
41 Reese, Peter 1192 1 26:W 6:L 22:L 23:L 35:L 30:L
42 Stevenson, John 1 27:L 21:L 38:- 0:W 0: 0:
43 Bell, Gerry .5 16:L 17:L 23:L 40:D 32:L 29:L

Rincewind
17-05-2004, 02:44 PM
I played in this event - pretty badly, except for one game, so it's good to see the spotlight being on the controversies rather than the worst performances.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You did manage to escape with a draw against Australia next IM. ;)

PHAT
17-05-2004, 03:38 PM
Actually you post is misleading.
There is an implication the player gained a point on forfeit. This is not true.
He was given a half point bye for round 1, a half point bye for round 2 and a zero point bye for round 3.
In other words he did not play on day 1.
He played 3 games on day 2 and scored 1.5/3.

Also I think you should point out your own vested interest here since you were one of two players rated under 1400 who had 2 "real" wins.

Bullshit am I misleading! You have merely reworded what I made quite clear. And so what if I was the sucker on 2/6? It makes no difference to the wrongness of a player playing just 50% of the games and getting a "free" point to take first prize. :wall:

alexmdc
17-05-2004, 04:10 PM
Was a pretty good event, though would have been much better with 7 rounds instead of 6! It was 7 last year, what changed?

Personally it went pretty average for me... I lost in 10 moves to Jesper after my queen got trapped (without having moved!) and was pretty much winning against Chris Kevork before choosing the wrong square for my king and giving him a successful attack. Then again I was completely lost against Vaness and somehow got a draw...

Also I'll have to agree with Matt's comments about the ratings prize - I didn't even know Adrian was playing until I saw him accepting the u1400 prize! How can you play half the games in a six round tourney and expect your result to be remotely accurate?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 04:15 PM
Bullshit am I misleading! You have merely reworded what I made quite clear.
Rubbish.
You implied he had scored a point on forfeit and hence 2 of his points out of 2.5 were scored from unplayed games. This was clearly false.


And so what if I was the sucker on 2/6?
Well it makes it look like sour grapes on your part.


It makes no difference to the wrongness of a player playing just 50% of the games and getting a "free" point to take first prize. :wall:
Guess thats a matter of opinion. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 04:19 PM
Also I'll have to agree with Matt's comments about the ratings prize - I didn't even know Adrian was playing until I saw him accepting the u1400 prize! How can you play half the games in a six round tourney and expect your result to be remotely accurate?
It was not unreasonable to expect that he could have 1 point after 3 three rounds. After all 3 players rated lower than him had 1 point after 3 rounds.

Ian Rout
17-05-2004, 04:25 PM
A quick observation. In the last round MS, on 1, was upfloated to a 1435 player on 1.5, while AM on 1.5 downfloated to an unrated on .5. This could be a factor in the outcome.

It could be right but on the principle of minimising the difference in scores of pairings the second part looks odd. Why did AM need to downfloat out of the 1.5s at all and MS upfloat into them? Was there some intricate web of players who had played each other and wrong colours due in the tail of the field?

ursogr8
17-05-2004, 04:33 PM
No Name Rtg Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Xie, George 2297 5.5 20:W 12:W 10:W 5:W 2:W 4:D
2 Canfell, Gregory J 2281 5 22:W 34:W 7:W 6:W 1:L 8:W
3 Song, Raymond 1843 5 23:W 39:W 4:D 7:D 19:W 6:W
4 Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper 2236 4.5 17:W 16:W 3:D 9:W 5:D 1:D
5 Joyce, John 2270 2270 4 24:W 13:W 11:W 1:L 4:D 7:D
6 Chan, Jason 1957 4 21:W 41:W 9:W 2:L 12:W 3:L
7 Charles, Gareth 2106 4 28:W 27:W 2:L 3:D 21:W 5:D
8 Kevork, Chris 1855 4 15:L 32:W 20:W 16:W 13:W 2:L
9 Samar, Raul 2139 4 35:W 19:W 6:L 4:L 25:W 14:W
10 Bolens, Johny 2029 4 18:W 33:W 1:L 19:L 23:W 24:W


Bill

Could you post the table after player 43 as well?

starter

arosar
17-05-2004, 04:35 PM
Guess thats a matter of opinion. :whistle:

An opinion I agree with.

If you were too busy, for whatever reason, to play the full tourn, you ought not to win anything. No bas.tard should be permitted to go home with the dough on account of a coupla byes. It's just plain cheating.

The whole thing is a joke, Bill, no matter how you spin the situation.

AR

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 04:41 PM
why do you players get 0.5 for having a bye of their choice anyway?

PHAT
17-05-2004, 04:54 PM
Rubbish.
You implied he had scored a point on forfeit and hence 2 of his points out of 2.5 were scored from unplayed games. This was clearly false.

I did not imply that, so it wasn't faulse.


Well it makes it look like sour grapes on your part.[/i] Look up "sour grapes," philistine.





Any way dudes, I enjoyed the event a lot. It's true! And or course, I am not having a go at Adrian - he's a nice kid. And I am not slagging off the SwissPerfect pairings. But to be eligable to win a grade prize - especially a low end grade - by playing half an event and getting a free point seems to me and everyone else with a brain, to be a difficult to defend travesty.

We make a big thing about the top players not being allowed to use half point byes to rig/guarrentee a minor placing in the open division. Why should we not be as fiar when it comes to the bottom end?

Rincewind
17-05-2004, 05:18 PM
Yes, on the face of it, Jason Cohn does look like a more qualified winner of an u-1400 prize, scoring two wins aganst 1550 opposition. AM scored a draw against a 1550 and a win against the unrated tailender. However, problems with the draw causing skewed results is not unusual.
After rnd 3 I don't think any u-1400 player was on more than 1, some were on 0 so perhaps only 0.5 point bye was more equitable.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 05:23 PM
why do you players get 0.5 for having a bye of their choice anyway?

Yes! And why oh why give 2 of them in a 6 round event? :eek: Why not give 1 or 2 or 3 or 6!! Cricky, 6 would put me in the money every event and I wouldn't have to playt at all. :D

The arguements against 3 is the same as against 2 and perhaps even 1.

That our supposedly smart DOPs could give the OK to two half point byes and a forfieted game allowing a player to stay in contention is evidense of incompetence.

BTW [maybe another thread needed] What is the accountability proceedure for DOPs running NSWCA events? When they f... up, do they still get paid? Do they still keep getting a guernseys reguardless of performance. Should they be paid hundreds of dollars to start an hour late and take an hour to work out the prize money? It effectively robs 50 people of two hours of their weekends. It is unacceptable incompetance that should not rewarded with a DOP fee.

jase
17-05-2004, 05:27 PM
Imagine a player being allowed to play only 3 out of 6 rounds, being granted 2 half point byes a and forfeit

Matthew, it's quite clear that you have implied as Bill suggests. You can refer your DOP = DOPES remark to me, as I was responsible for arranging this situation. Adrian was very keen to play the tournament but was unable to play the Saturday rounds. The options I considered were to either deny him entry, or come to an arrangement concerning how many half point byes should be allowed.

Since I want to encourage more entries into tournaments, I proposed two half point byes and a Round 3 forfeit. I considered this to be a reasonable score for Adrian. It's the equivalent of being awarded the bye in any of the first three rounds. If you regard the 2nd bye as too generous, that's your call. Those who agree with jay vee, alexdmc, and arosar, that Adrian should have been denied entry, are at the absolute opposite of the spectrum to me; I prefer to be flexible, make allowance where possible, and encourage greater participation.


We make a big thing about the top players not being allowed to use half point byes to rig/guarrentee a minor placing in the open division.

I have applied fair and transparent criteria here: top or bottom, players are permitted to request a bye, and it will almost certainly be granted, in the early rounds. The scenario you paint refers to top end players in the last couple of rounds.


though would have been much better with 7 rounds instead of 6! It was 7 last year, what changed?

Was it? Lately weekenders have been 6 round affairs. Post a schedule in this thread for a good 7 round weekender and I will evaluate it. Unless you change the time controls you'll be creating a very long Saturday.

arosar
17-05-2004, 05:30 PM
Those who agree with jay vee, alexdmc, and arosar, that Adrian should have been denied entry, are at the absolute opposite of the spectrum to me; I prefer to be flexible, make allowance where possible, and encourage greater participation.

Hold on sec! I didn't say that these buggers shouldn't be allowed to enter. Enter them - that's fine with me. All I'm saying is, they shouldn't be eligible for any prize money. Else it's downright friggin' cheatin'.

AR

PHAT
17-05-2004, 05:35 PM
This is the kind of fun chess I enjoyed at the event. Sweeney-Losh. Losh (Gary) said to me afterward, "I never want to be a soldier in your army - I'll have to call you Gallipoli."

8. d3? {8.d4!}
19. Bxg3!? {deliberate sac to put a black pawn on the f file and thus giving my king protection from the deadly black rook}
20. Qe1!

1. e4 d6 2. f4 e5 3. Nf3 exf4 4. Bc4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. 0–0 Qf6 8. d3 Be6 9. Nxe6 fxe6 10. Rxf4 Qg6 11. Qf1 Nd7 12. Be3 0–0–0 13. Nc3 Bg7 14. Nb5 Be5 15. Nxa7+ Kb8 16. Ba6 Bxf4 17. Nc6+ bxc6 18. Bxf4 Rhf8 19. g3 e5 20. Qe1 exf4 21. Qb4+ Nb6 22. a4 Ka7 23. a5 Rb8 24. axb6+ Rxb6 25. Bb5+ Kb7 26. Ba6+ Kb8 27. Qa3 Qf6 28. Bb7 Kxb7 29. Qa7+ Kc8

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2004, 05:41 PM
And I am not slagging off the SwissPerfect pairings.

Hell, I am. I haven't looked at it in detail but it's obvious that a player on 1.5 played a player on .5 while there was another player on .5 and spare players on 1 as well.

This has been discussed previously - the problem is a very dodgy reading of the SP rules in which item C13 is interpreted to override item B3 even though item B3 is a relative criterion that should be "fulfilled as much as possible".

If I had been DOP and had had time, SwissImperfect (not its fault, FIDE's fault for writing the rules so ambiguously) would have been overridden and the draw for those boards performed manually. A different draw which avoided this mismatch would have then occurred. This is a textbook example of why these batched groupings that fly completely in the face of the principles of the Swiss system should not occur. :wall:


But to be eligable to win a grade prize - especially a low end grade - by playing half an event and getting a free point seems to me and everyone else with a brain, to be a difficult to defend travesty.

I think this is more a matter for the organisers. I do think two half-point byes for three rounds is a tad generous but it is within the organisers' discretion. I would have given only one half-point bye in the circumstances, and I am aware of a case where an outright contender was refused even one half-point bye for a two-round absence. That the player would probably have been on 1/3 anyway is not relevant because a player who misses rounds isn't entitled to the presumption that they would have scored to their rating in those rounds.

Can't blame the winner for winning the prize - one can only play who one is told to and do one's best against them, but it looks to me like the most deserving winner would have probably been Jason Cohn, not that quadruple swiss gambiteer who tied with him. :whistle:

jay_vee
17-05-2004, 05:41 PM
A quick observation. In the last round MS, on 1, was upfloated to a 1435 player on 1.5, while AM on 1.5 downfloated to an unrated on .5. This could be a factor in the outcome.

It could be right but on the principle of minimising the difference in scores of pairings the second part looks odd. Why did AM need to downfloat out of the 1.5s at all and MS upfloat into them? Was there some intricate web of players who had played each other and wrong colours due in the tail of the field?

Generally, last round pairings in swisses with an even number of rounds are messy, because everyone (ignoring byes...) goes into the last round with an uneven number of games and thus has had either (in this case) 2 whites and 3 blacks or the other way around. So you are basically forced to give the above player the white pieces, because otherwise he'd end the tournament with 4 blacks and only 2 whites which is rather unfair as well as being rather high on the swiss pairing rules' list of things you don't want to happen.
So because of the even number of rounds, basically half the possible pairings in the last round are not allowed for colour reasons.
The result is plenty of floaters...

Jase, I'm all for flexibility and encouraging players to participate, and in this particular case I agree that the 1/3 from the first rounds are not entirely unreasonable. I would have had more problems if it had been the second day, when, after having scored a good 1.5/3, the player decides not to risk anything, and just grabs another free point off the byes and let's the system finish the tournament for him. Not good. I'm not sure what to do about this, but barring such players from winning prizes would not seem entirely unfair.

And just for the record: even though Matthew's post wasn't worded precisely,
it was perfectly obvious what he meant, so please stop the pointless "you implied x".

alexmdc
17-05-2004, 05:43 PM
Was it? Lately weekenders have been 6 round affairs. Post a schedule in this thread for a good 7 round weekender and I will evaluate it. Unless you change the time controls you'll be creating a very long Saturday.

Yes it was, with 4 rounds on the saturday. What was the schedule last year? I don't remember the time control last year but I'm pretty sure it was the same (I could dig up my scoresheets if you want to know). Some weekenders have been 6 rounds but most still fit in 7 rounds, it's not that big a deal.

And as arosar said, I didn't say deny him entry but it seems silly giving him a $200 ratings prize for 3 games of chess... he shouldn't be eligible for a prize.

arosar
17-05-2004, 05:55 PM
And as arosar said, I didn't say deny him entry but it seems silly giving him a $200 ratings prize for 3 games of chess... he shouldn't be eligible for a prize.

Well that's just disgusting, isn't it? $200 bucks...FMD man . . . forget about learning your Sicilians - just work the system.

Anyway, the NSWCA is rich. So rich, in fact, that they're giving away $1000 first prizes in 3 divisions at the NSW Rapid play.

AR

PHAT
17-05-2004, 06:08 PM
Anyway, the NSWCA is rich. So rich, in fact, that they're giving away $1000 first prizes in 3 divisions at the NSW Rapid play.


Well, AR, they are not so flush that they can pay the calulated and prizes, posted at the end of round 3. The total pool was then reduced by about $200. Apparentely, accurite primary school level addition and subtraction is beyond our officials. Furthermore, I view the NSWCA reneging on such things with our members, as contemptable.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2004, 06:14 PM
Generally, last round pairings in swisses with an even number of rounds are messy, because everyone (ignoring byes...) goes into the last round with an uneven number of games and thus has had either (in this case) 2 whites and 3 blacks or the other way around. So you are basically forced to give the above player the white pieces, because otherwise he'd end the tournament with 4 blacks and only 2 whites which is rather unfair as well as being rather high on the swiss pairing rules' list of things you don't want to happen.

Actually colour preference is B4 on the list of priorities which is below B3 "The difference of the scores of two players paired against each other should be as small as possible and ideally zero."

It is only where the colour difference exceeds two (not is two, as in the case of a 4-2 split), or a player would get three the same in a row, that players may be floated in order to fix a colour problem.

4-2 (+2) splits are fine - you try to avoid them but you don't float to get rid of them.

jay_vee
17-05-2004, 06:20 PM
Actually colour preference is B4 on the list of priorities which is below B3 "The difference of the scores of two players paired against each other should be as small as possible and ideally zero."

It is only where the colour difference exceeds two (not is two, as in the case of a 4-2 split), or a player would get three the same in a row, that players may be floated in order to fix a colour problem.

4-2 (+2) splits are fine - you try to avoid them but you don't float to get rid of them.

Hmm, okay, there goes my explanation...
I stand corrected. But I'm always happy to learn :-)

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 06:30 PM
That our supposedly smart DOPs could give the OK to two half point byes and a forfieted game allowing a player to stay in contention is evidense of incompetence.
Stop spreading falsehoods. According to the crosstable he did not have a forfeit of any kind.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 06:34 PM
Bill

Could you post the table after player 43 as well?

starter
No, because there were only 43 entries.

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 06:35 PM
what decision would you have made Jason if the player asking for the first three rounds off was one of the highest rated players?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 06:42 PM
I have applied fair and transparent criteria here: top or bottom, players are permitted to request a bye, and it will almost certainly be granted, in the early rounds. The scenario you paint refers to top end players in the last couple of rounds.
The NSWCA has a policy on half-point byes.
No more than two in a tournament and none in the last third of a tournament.



Was it? Lately weekenders have been 6 round affairs. Post a schedule in this thread for a good 7 round weekender and I will evaluate it. Unless you change the time controls you'll be creating a very long Saturday.
Yes last year it was 7 rounds.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 06:55 PM
Anyway, the NSWCA is rich. So rich, in fact, that they're giving away $1000 first prizes in 3 divisions at the NSW Rapid play.
Those prizes in the advert are due to typing errors. It is $100 not $1000.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 06:58 PM
Stop spreading falsehoods. According to the crosstable he did not have a forfeit of any kind.

OK, what will we call it when a player is permitted to not play a game in a particular round and receives zero points for his not playing. What ever we call it, for that player it is in practical terms, a forfiet.

Anyway, this is yet another BG red herring and not at all important. Reply to this post if you want, but I cannot be bothered discussing this utterly irrelavent shit any further.

If you want to tell us exactly why you think winning money on the strength of two half point byes and playing only half a tournement is "good" or "right", enlighten us. Short of this, shut your hole.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 07:02 PM
Those prizes in the advert are due to typing errors. It is $100 not $1000.

Not those typos, goose. The prizes were posted about round three. At the prize giving (half a bloody hour after the last game finished) players were looking at eachother with reguard to being short changed. Not a good move by the NSWCA.

jase
17-05-2004, 07:05 PM
what decision would you have made Jason if the player asking for the first three rounds off was one of the highest rated players?

The same.

You can argue that two half point byes is too generous, but Matthew's claim of bias is ignorant, mildly offensive, and should by now have been withdrawn.


Some weekenders have been 6 rounds but most still fit in 7 rounds, it's not that big a deal.

We have amended weekenders to 6 rounds, so obviously the NSWCA does regard it as significant. To repeat: design a good schedule for 7 rounds, and post it. That way your criticism is constructive, instead of a complaint.

alexmdc
17-05-2004, 07:11 PM
We have amended weekenders to 6 rounds, so obviously the NSWCA does regard it as significant. To repeat: design a good schedule for 7 rounds, and post it. That way your criticism is constructive, instead of a complaint.

I shouldn't need to design one, as you used one last year which worked great.

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 07:15 PM
to me it doesnt seem to matter whether what the tournament length is when discussing the situation about 0.5 byes. Yes, i know that the more rounds, the less influence of a 0.5 bye being awarded has on the overall tournament, but I have a major problem with the awarding of two 0.5 byes in the same tournament.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 07:15 PM
The same.

You can argue that two half point byes is too generous, but Matthew's claim of bias is ignorant, mildly offensive, and should by now have been withdrawn.



I did not cliam bias. I claimed that more airtime is given to the problems of the top players than the problems bottom players. Imagine the stink if a someone won the Australian by a half point bye. On the otherhand, if Wood Pusher bags the U1400 by the same method, the DOPEs couldn't give a stuff.

And "mildly offensive" stuff doesn't get withdrawn, firstly beacuse it was due to a misunderstanding and second because it is not deeply offensive.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:16 PM
OK, what will we call it when a player is permitted to not play a game in a particular round and receives zero points for his not playing. What ever we call it, for that player it is in practical terms, a forfiet.
No its not a forfeit.
It is a zero point bye.
A forfeit implies he had an opponent but failed to play the game.


Anyway, this is yet another BG red herring and not at all important. Reply to this post if you want, but I cannot be bothered discussing this utterly irrelavent shit any further.
Then learn the difference between byes and forfeits.


If you want to tell us exactly why you think winning money on the strength of two half point byes and playing only half a tournement is "good" or "right", enlighten us. Short of this, shut your hole.
Its not against the rules.
We took the players entry fee. He is entitled to a prize.
His two half point byes were not totally unreasonable.

jase
17-05-2004, 07:16 PM
I shouldn't need to design one, as you used one last year which worked great.

Okay, so we establish that when it comes to anything useful, you're unwilling or unable to participate.

As already stated, it was felt that the old 7 round schedule made for too long a Saturday. Registration was at 9am, and games finished at around 9pm. That might be great for you, but the NSWCA came in for criticism for that scheduling, and changes were made. I think the criticism is reasonable - 12 hours at a chess hall is quite extreme.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:18 PM
We have amended weekenders to 6 rounds, so obviously the NSWCA does regard it as significant. To repeat: design a good schedule for 7 rounds, and post it. That way your criticism is constructive, instead of a complaint.
Actually I think this was related to being able to get the venue long enough on the saturday.

jase
17-05-2004, 07:27 PM
I did not cliam bias. I claimed that more airtime is given to the problems of the top players than the problems bottom players.


Why should we not be as fiar when it comes to the bottom end?

More concern given to one subset of a group is bias. Likewise, 'not as fair' is bias. Agreed?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:28 PM
Well, AR, they are not so flush that they can pay the calulated and prizes, posted at the end of round 3. The total pool was then reduced by about $200. Apparentely, accurite primary school level addition and subtraction is beyond our officials. Furthermore, I view the NSWCA reneging on such things with our members, as contemptable.
Then you should learn to read.
The NSWCA reneged on nothing.
The advert was quite clear.
The advertised prize fund was based on 50 entries. There were only 43.
The advert noted however that $1500 was guaranteed.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:29 PM
to me it doesnt seem to matter whether what the tournament length is when discussing the situation about 0.5 byes. Yes, i know that the more rounds, the less influence of a 0.5 bye being awarded has on the overall tournament, but I have a major problem with the awarding of two 0.5 byes in the same tournament.
Then take it up with your state association. ;)

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:31 PM
I did not cliam bias. I claimed that more airtime is given to the problems of the top players than the problems bottom players. Imagine the stink if a someone won the Australian by a half point bye.
Provided the half-point bye occurred in the first 6-7 rounds I dont think there would be a problem.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:33 PM
Not those typos, goose. The prizes were posted about round three. At the prize giving (half a bloody hour after the last game finished) players were looking at eachother with reguard to being short changed. Not a good move by the NSWCA.
Actually given all the rubbish you were sprouting I just accidently quoted your post and not AR's.

I responded to your rubbish in another post.

alexmdc
17-05-2004, 07:35 PM
Okay, so we establish that when it comes to anything useful, you're unwilling or unable to participate.

As already stated, it was felt that the old 7 round schedule made for too long a Saturday. Registration was at 9am, and games finished at around 9pm. That might be great for you, but the NSWCA came in for criticism for that scheduling, and changes were made. I think the criticism is reasonable - 12 hours at a chess hall is quite extreme.

Huh?

I originally was interested in why there were 6 rounds this year compared to 7 last year, which you failed to answer before attacking my comments. I don't believe I criticised the format, but I am certainly in favour of more rounds. I think we have established that you're unable to answer a question. And now why are you and Bill giving conflicting answers?

And since I'm such a useless critic, I might as well keep going. There were 59 entries last year, so perhaps I'm not the only one who preferred the old format?

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Then take it up with your state association. ;)
ill move to tweed heads and make nswca my state association :lol: :doh: :whistle:

Alan Shore
17-05-2004, 07:51 PM
ill move to tweed heads and make nswca my state association :lol: :doh: :whistle:

Bill should try for a takeover of CAQ and we can become the North-East Chess Federation. However you must strike quickly before Cordover and his evil Empire take the whole of Australia by force!

jase
17-05-2004, 07:52 PM
Huh?

I originally was interested in why there were 6 rounds this year compared to 7 last year, which you failed to answer before attacking my comments.

I addressed this point at post 27 - hard to miss, since I quoted your query in my response:


Unless you change the time controls you'll be creating a very long Saturday.

And in case you just don't get it, I expanded on this point. Whether you agree with the point or not, I believe that at least everyone else understood it.


I think we have established that you're unable to answer a question. Have we? That's a bit harsh considering you need your questions answered two or three times before anything is sinking in. Can you do any better than parody to avoid the task that was set?


And now why are you and Bill giving conflicting answers?
Are we? Or could there be more than one reason for the change to 6 rounds in recent weekenders? Was this the only 6 round weekender that the NSWCA has run in recent times?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:53 PM
ill move to tweed heads and make nswca my state association :lol: :doh: :whistle:
:lol:

Alan Shore
17-05-2004, 07:53 PM
No its not a forfeit.
It is a zero point bye.
A forfeit implies he had an opponent but failed to play the game.


Despite the semantics is the implication for an individual any different? I would guess it would change the structure of the swiss pairings for subsequent rounds bu nothing more, correct?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2004, 07:58 PM
Despite the semantics is the implication for an individual any different? I would guess it would change the structure of the swiss pairings for subsequent rounds bu nothing more, correct?
Actually for the individual it would probably make no difference even in the swiss pairings.

The point was that Matt's original indignant post implied that 2 of the players 2.5 points came from unplayed games. This was not the case.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 08:40 PM
1. Its not against the rules.
2. We took the players entry fee. He is entitled to a prize.
3. His two half point byes were not totally unreasonable.

1. And we all know the rules are right - otherwise they wouldn't be the rules :doh:
2. Take half an entry fee for half a tournament :doh:
3. Not totaly unreasonable? Drop the double negative and we get "totally reasonable". So fa,r only you and Jase seem to be the only ones who see any virtue in this quagmire.

PHAT
17-05-2004, 08:46 PM
More concern given to one subset of a group is bias. Likewise, 'not as fair' is bias. Agreed?

Touche. You are right. But I was not singling out persons (or you), I did say "we". :)

Ian Rout
17-05-2004, 09:32 PM
Just curious, and possibly this is not the place to discuss it so if it's a big topic so somebody might want to start a new thread, but are half-point byes unusual in NSW (or elsewhere)?

In ACT club events it's normal to allow half-point byes with no need to produce a reason. Typically the ratio is a maximum of two for a seven-round event or three for a nine/eleven. The rules vary, at Canberra CC byes may only be taken in the first two rounds while at Belconnen it's any round except the last. I think Tuggeranong is similar to Belconnen these days.

The logic is that taking a half point won't, overall, help or hinder enormously - you might have won or lost and on average would have scored half a point, and the Swiss draw will even out any perturbations. And as Keres once observed, you can't win a tournament by drawing every game (he didn't know Kramnik). However being forced to take a zero, especially in a round where you could well have won, will wreck your tournament and those of players who will play you in the next couple of rounds. In practice people often can't make it every week for seven weeks.

The reason Belconnen is more relaxed is partly because it plays on Friday, when people are more likely to have other commitments, and partly because it doesn't have prizes so there is less incentive to take tactical byes.

What are the normal rules in other places?

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 09:38 PM
Just curious, and possibly this is not the place to discuss it so if it's a big topic so somebody might want to start a new thread, but are half-point byes unusual in NSW (or elsewhere)?

In ACT club events it's normal to allow half-point byes with no need to produce a reason. Typically the ratio is a maximum of two for a seven-round event or three for a nine/eleven. The rules vary, at Canberra CC byes may only be taken in the first two rounds while at Belconnen it's any round except the last. I think Tuggeranong is similar to Belconnen these days.

The logic is that taking a half point won't, overall, help or hinder enormously - you might have won or lost and on average would have scored half a point, and the Swiss draw will even out any perturbations. And as Keres once observed, you can't win a tournament by drawing every game (he didn't know Kramnik). However being forced to take a zero, especially in a round where you could well have won, will wreck your tournament and those of players who will play you in the next couple of rounds. In practice people often can't make it every week for seven weeks.

The reason Belconnen is more relaxed is partly because it plays on Friday, when people are more likely to have other commitments, and partly because it doesn't have prizes so there is less incentive to take tactical byes.

What are the normal rules in other places?


from my experiences in qld and looking at the results after tournaments, the normal practice up here is that each player is asked on their entry form if they wish to take a bye in any round except the last. I have not known or seen anyone who has been given two 0.5 byes in one tournament up here.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2004, 09:54 PM
2. Take half an entry fee for half a tournament :doh:

An option, but not one so obviously superior as to merit a :doh:

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2004, 10:07 PM
What are the normal rules in other places?

Tas - rulings on half point byes are at the discretion of the individual organisers. In weekenders, on average a player absent (with notification + approval) for one or more rounds gets half a point for the first one and no points thereafter. I don't know any DOP here who has awarded multiple half-point byes to a player missing more than one round.

Sometimes the bye-getter will get a full point if they would have got the bye anyway.

Our only contentious case was an Australia Day weekend event in the late 90s where Frame (5.5/6) was leading Bonham (5/6) and Rothlisberger (4/6) with two rounds to go, but Frame's work refused him Monday off. It was originally intended that Frame receive at least one half-point bye in lieu of rounds 7 and 8 but Rothlisberger wasn't very keen on this idea and after a lot of discussion the DOP (David Ferris) eventually decided a lead contender at this point of the event should receive nothing.

Club night events here are all round robins so the issue doesn't arise. When the old Hobart club had Swiss events in the late 80s postponements were used instead (with catchup nights every 3 rounds) but this system was a mess to run.

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 10:12 PM
i think the main issue regarding how many byes etc and what to do is a bigger issue in weekender tournaments because

1) there is no room to move regarding playing catch up games
2) generally the prizemoney and status is larger in weekenders.

Lucena
17-05-2004, 11:09 PM
Those prizes in the advert are due to typing errors. It is $100 not $1000.
Come on Bill. You know you shouldn't have dignified Amiel's post with a response :wall: :hand: :D

Lucena
17-05-2004, 11:33 PM
I think 6 rounds is almost ok but it's not ideal (that said it's fair enuf with scheduling etc). 7 rounds helps with colours and makes it more like you're getting value for money. I don't have an answer re scheduling though-but I didn't think 7 rounds was that bad in the past.

jase
17-05-2004, 11:52 PM
I think 6 rounds is almost ok but it's not ideal (that said it's fair enuf with scheduling etc). 7 rounds helps with colours and makes it more like you're getting value for money. I don't have an answer re scheduling though-but I didn't think 7 rounds was that bad in the past.

Gareth do you mean "in the past" as in when the time control was a flat one hour? Under the current time controls you need about 12 hours to get the tournament under way and fit in 4 rounds on the Saturday. If we played 50m + 10s per move, you could schedule registration plus 4 rounds in a day with much greater comfort:

10am Registration
10:30am Round 1
12:45pm Round 2
3pm Round 3
5:15pm Round 4

Very sensible - not too early a start, and keeps your Saturday night free to go out with friends [or even chessplayers! :owned: ]

The fly in this ointment is that games would be classed as rapid [and some may feel they need that extra 10 minutes].

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 11:11 AM
The fly in this ointment is that games would be classed as rapid [and some may feel they need that extra 10 minutes].
if the 10 seconds increment was from the start, then wouldnt the games still be normal rated? 50 mins plus 10 secs x 60 moves ( 600 secs/ 10 minutes) equals 60 minutes at 60 moves.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 12:19 PM
if the 10 seconds increment was from the start, then wouldnt the games still be normal rated? 50 mins plus 10 secs x 60 moves ( 600 secs/ 10 minutes) equals 60 minutes at 60 moves.
Nope.
This was discussed back in the thread Weekend Time Controls.
In fact see post 3 in the thread at
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=381&page=1

You should earn a goosemaster norm for this effort. :hand:

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 12:40 PM
Nope.
This was discussed back in the thread Weekend Time Controls.
In fact see post 3 in the thread at
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=381&page=1

You should earn a goosemaster norm for this effort. :hand:
that would be very harsh since i thought to be in contention to earn a goosemaster norm, you had to report something as fact, have it proven as wrong and then keep arguing that your opinion is right :whistle: . I have not done this :p After re reading the linked thread, have i read it right that if X is 50 minutes then Y would have to be 30 seconds to be normal rated, is that correct :confused:

ursogr8
18-05-2004, 12:51 PM
if the 10 seconds increment was from the start, then wouldnt the games still be normal rated? 50 mins plus 10 secs x 60 moves ( 600 secs/ 10 minutes) equals 60 minutes at 60 moves.



Nope.
This was discussed back in the thread Weekend Time Controls.
In fact see post 3 in the thread at
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=381&page=1

You should earn a goosemaster norm for this effort. :hand:

ra’gg’y’

How could you make such a mistake and overlook post #3?

Bill
The norm is a harsh penalty that should be reserved for consistent performance.
As an alternate, I suggest we ask Jeo to deduct 250 post-count points instead.

starter

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 01:37 PM
that would be very harsh since i thought to be in contention to earn a goosemaster norm, you had to report something as fact, have it proven as wrong and then keep arguing that your opinion is right :whistle: . I have not done this :p After re reading the linked thread, have i read it right that if X is 50 minutes then Y would have to be 30 seconds to be normal rated, is that correct :confused:
Well done grasshopper.

Ok. No goosemaster norm this time, but maybe just a partial credit. ;)

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 01:40 PM
ra’gg’y’

How could you make such a mistake and overlook post #3?

Bill
The norm is a harsh penalty that should be reserved for consistent performance.
As an alternate, I suggest we ask Jeo to deduct 250 post-count points instead.

starter
Ha ha.
You and your damn post count battle with gg.

PHAT
18-05-2004, 03:11 PM
It would seem that the vast majority of posters agree that two half point byes in a six round swiss is a unacceptable. Will the ACF be making a recommendation: That no more than one half point bye will be awarded to any one player in a tournament.

Don't hold your breath. The ACF is a JOKE! No guts. No balls. No future.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 03:18 PM
It would seem that the vast majority of posters agree that two half point byes in a six round swiss is a unacceptable. Will the ACF be making a recommendation: That no more than one half point bye will be awarded to any one player in a tournament.
You have only graced us with your presence at 1 out of the last 3 NSWCA Council meetings but if you turn up to next weeks meeting you could suggest that the NSWCA restrict its half point byes to only one in a six round event.


Don't hold your breath. The ACF is a JOKE! No guts. No balls. No future.
Its a state issue not an ACF one.

arosar
18-05-2004, 03:46 PM
Its a state issue not an ACF one.

But they could provide thought leadership on the matter, yes?

AR

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 04:29 PM
But they could provide thought leadership on the matter, yes?

AR
well according to the acf, the mobile fone rule is already in play and has to be enforced, but I know for a fact that my state believes it doesnt start to next year. I think the acf needs to send the secretaries of each state a copy of the rule and tell them that the rule is to be enforced from this date on.

Ian Rout
18-05-2004, 04:31 PM
I would think it isn't even a State issue, it's an organiser matter, except where the State association is also the organiser. Why should ACF or State bodies be interested in micro-meddling in the bye rules for every individual event?

Of course the problem is that next time when the byes rule is harsher Matthew will be complaining that some player missed out on a prize because they were given zero-point byes.

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 04:32 PM
Ha ha.
You and your damn post count battle with gg.
trust me, its a one way battle. I would rather post counts be eliminated, but that wont happen. I do want to know though starter, are you going to pick on Barry Cox and arosar when I pass them :lol: ;) :whistle: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 05:06 PM
But they could provide thought leadership on the matter, yes?

AR
Actually I agree with Ian Rout.
It is an organiser issue.

arosar
18-05-2004, 05:41 PM
Well, of course, you would, woudn't you?

No one's saying, certainly not even Matt I think (he used the word 'recommendation'), that the ACF should pass some fiat regarding byes. After all, micro-meddling by the peak body will only deprive arbiters of flexibility. What the ACF can do, though, is provide best practice ideas that are non-binding.

AR

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 05:46 PM
Well, of course, you would, woudn't you?

No one's saying, certainly not even Matt I think (he used the word 'recommendation'), that the ACF should pass some fiat regarding byes. After all, micro-meddling by the peak body will only deprive arbiters of flexibility. What the ACF can do, though, is provide best practice ideas that are non-binding.
Personally I see no point in making a recommendation that is non binding.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 05:49 PM
Well, of course, you would, woudn't you?
As a non volunteer and non organiser your view is irrelevant. ;)

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 05:51 PM
As a non volunteer and non organiser your view is irrelevant. ;)
dont start this again :hand:

PHAT
18-05-2004, 05:56 PM
Of course the problem is that next time when the byes rule is harsher Matthew will be complaining that some player missed out on a prize because they were given zero-point byes.

I am not sure I would agree that I would be complaining. I see the zero point bye as fair to the other players and the half point bye as fair to the individual. I am yet to be convinced either way.

PHAT
18-05-2004, 05:58 PM
It is an organiser issue.
Total crap, It is a chess community issue. If you don't know that, you are on another planet.

PHAT
18-05-2004, 06:01 PM
Personally I see no point in making a recommendation that is non binding.

That is because you are blind. Recommendations set the standards that eventually becomes the norm. Only an a blind man cannot see that........ Or maybe you can :eek: [See next post]

PHAT
18-05-2004, 06:10 PM
As a non volunteer and non organiser your view is irrelevant. ;)

He is a paid up member of the NSWCA. That makes his view relevant.

You are so out of touch with the rank and file. You seem to want to protect your patch of control by hook or by crook. Every man and his dog says two half point byes stink and you think they are A-OK. So, you don't want body issuing recommendations to the contary. Shame.

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 06:13 PM
You have only graced us with your presence at 1 out of the last 3 NSWCA Council meetings but if you turn up to next weeks meeting you could suggest that the NSWCA restrict its half point byes to only one in a six round event.
well matt, since you want tournaments restricted to one point byes, turn up to your councils next meeting.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 06:17 PM
Total crap, It is a chess community issue. If you don't know that, you are on another planet.
The only person on another planet is you.
Perhaps thats why there was no apology on your part for your two absences from NSWCA councils meetings.
No means of communication?

arosar
18-05-2004, 06:18 PM
well matt, since you want tournaments restricted to one point byes, turn up to your councils next meeting.

Say anything, in anyone's patch, in everyone else's business, to get your post count up, right?

When are we gonna see QLD action? We've waited long enough I think. No more hints here and there.

AR

Paul S
18-05-2004, 06:18 PM
Its good to see a bit of 'life" returning to this forum! I guess we have Matthew and Amiel to thank for that - thankyou Amiel and Matt. :D :p ;)

Anyway, a few of my thoughts. Firstly, Adrian Miranda is a nice boy (Junior), and also I get on well with his father Manoj. It's not their fault that this controversy has ensued. What was the "correct" thing to do? Well, OK, here are my thoughts. I would suggest no points for Adrian for missing Saturday, but at the same time give him free entry for the Sunday (seeing as there were an odd number of players) and if he were then to win a U1400 prize, well, good luck to him! Sure, if Adrian were to play on the Saturday he most likely would have ended up with 1/3. Yet at the same time he had a big advantage by just playing on the Sunday, as the other playres (who played on the Saturday) would have been more mentally tired. I remember circa 1994 playing in a 11 round (I think) rapidplay weekender at the Shore Inn Hotel (the one at which the Polgar sisters were playing!). Anyway, I decided to "splurge out" and spend the night at the Shore Inn Hotel, while virtually every other player made the long trip back home on Saturday evening and an equally long trip back to the Shore Inn on Sunday morning. To cut a long story short, as a result of being able to relax more (eg enjoy sauna, gym, swim in pool, not have to rush etc), I did quite well on the Sunday, as opposed to others who were mentally tired from the day before.

As for the other issue discussed in this thread (6 rounds or 7 rounds for a weekender), I say 7 rounds is better (personally I would prefer 8!). Obviously time limits come into play. Well, I was quite happy with the "old" one hour per player per game format. IMHO one hour per player per game had the advantages of: 1) was enough "thinking time" time to win/lose a chess game, 2) you did not have to wait around too long for your next game, 3) was not too time consuming (would start and finish at a reasonable hour) and 4) 7 rounds gives a better and more accurate "spread" of results (and better colour split) than 6 rounds. Furthermore (correct me if I am wrong), but the numbers of chess players at weekenders were bigger in "the good old days" with this time limit than they are at present.

PHAT
18-05-2004, 06:19 PM
The prizes were posted about round three. At the prize giving ... players were looking at eachother with reguard to being short changed. Not a good move by the NSWCA.

I still haven't seen a reply to this piece of reneging.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 06:20 PM
That is because you are blind. Recommendations set the standards that eventually becomes the norm. Only an a blind man cannot see that........ Or maybe you can :eek: [See next post]
Well I'm sure then you will be at the next NSWCA council meeting to put forward you view.
The current rules on byes was decided by the NSWCA Council a couple of years back when I believe Bob Keast was President.

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 06:22 PM
Say anything, in anyone's patch, in everyone else's business, to get your post count up, right?

When are we gonna see QLD action? We've waited long enough I think. No more hints here and there.

AR
i was wondering when you were going to tell me to shut my pie hole up :whistle: and as usual ill listen as much as i always do :lol:

about caq action, ever heard of an agm :eek:

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 06:25 PM
He is a paid up member of the NSWCA. That makes his view relevant.
Pay attention moron and you would notice I put a ;) at the end of it.
If I was seriously having a go at him I would have been much harsher.


You are so out of touch with the rank and file.
Yes, well you hardly represent the rank and file.


You seem to want to protect your patch of control by hook or by crook. Every man and his dog says two half point byes stink and you think they are A-OK. So, you don't want body issuing recommendations to the contary. Shame.
The only shame is that you seem to have a problem when any decision goes against your particular point of view.

As for every man and his dog saying two byes stink, clearly this is false. Firstly Jase disagrees with you. I doubt if at the start of the 4th round a vote was taken at the tournament if the 2 half point byes were unreasonable you would not have gotten every man and his dog supporting your view.

You are just being narky because you missed out on the prize.

Instead of wasting time on this you should be holding meetings regarding a chess centre. This was supposed to happen after the March meeting. As far as I know you have still done nothing about it.

Garvinator
18-05-2004, 06:28 PM
Instead of wasting time on this you should be holding meetings regarding a chess centre. This was supposed to happen after the March meeting. As far as I know you have still done nothing about it.
the thread police boss steps in here and rules that if you want to talk about this, create another thread ;) :lol: :hand:

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2004, 06:32 PM
It would seem that the vast majority of posters agree that two half point byes in a six round swiss is a unacceptable. Will the ACF be making a recommendation: That no more than one half point bye will be awarded to any one player in a tournament.

Too inflexible and simplistic. As with most of your impractical suggestions, although I'm pleased to see this time you just want us to waste our time on a "recommendation", rather than all-out war against all clubs failing to comply.

There are clubs that allow multiple half point byes for nightly events for good reasons. This is an organiser discretion matter. I would not generally allow two half-point byes myself but it's not something I see as needing regulation or even objectively "wrong", it's just a question of different organiser styles and circumstances. If an organiser makes a decision over it and you don't like their decision, tell them. If you don't like their response, play in somebody else's tournaments. :hand: Too much restriction gets in the way of organisers experimenting with new ideas. As one who has run a tournament with an unusual prize structure, you should appreciate the benefits of this freedom.

Put your money where your mouth is and move a motion at your State Association AGM to ban double byes in NSW. I reckon you would lose. People can see the difference between personally disagreeing with an organiser's decision and wanting to ban it.

Paul S
18-05-2004, 06:32 PM
I have a question Amiel, what does 'FMD' mean that you keep posting?

I can answer this one!

F = F*** (a four letter word)
M = Me
D = Dead

Alan Shore
18-05-2004, 06:41 PM
I can answer this one!

F = F*** (a four letter word)
M = Me
D = Dead

Haha, right, TFCTTP Paul :)

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2004, 07:43 PM
I still haven't seen a reply to this piece of reneging.
I responded to you but it looks like ya missed it.

The NSWCA reneged on nothing.
The advert was quite clear.
The advertised prize fund of $1900 was based on 50 entries. There were only 43.
The advert noted however that $1500 was guaranteed.

I should also note that based on Norm Greenwoods report after expenses (DOP, rent, etc) the money remaining was $1611.

$1610 was paid in prizes.

Looks like we made $1 profit. :owned:

Lucena
18-05-2004, 10:14 PM
Looks like we made $1 profit. :owned:

How do we know that dollar wasn't misappropriated? I propose an audit. :D

PHAT
19-05-2004, 07:07 AM
I responded to you but it looks like ya missed it.

The NSWCA reneged on nothing.
The advert was quite clear.
The advertised prize fund of $1900 was based on 50 entries. There were only 43.
The advert noted however that $1500 was guaranteed.

I should also note that based on Norm Greenwoods report after expenses (DOP, rent, etc) the money remaining was $1611.

$1610 was paid in prizes.

Looks like we made $1 profit. :owned:

You don't listen. You are not addressing the issue at all. I suspect that you do actually know the story and are being deliberately obfuscate.

About round 3, a prize list was posted. That list had prizes that totalled about $1800. That prize list becomes the official prize list reguardless of the previously advertised list, typos notwithstanding. That $1800 should have been paid. Instead, the players were left looking at eachother as they received less than the officially posted prize. The NSWCA looks cheap and stupid. The prize winners should be sent the outstanding amount. This is the right and proper thing to do.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 10:55 AM
You don't listen. You are not addressing the issue at all. I suspect that you do actually know the story and are being deliberately obfuscate.
No I'm just stating the Councils position on such issues.


About round 3, a prize list was posted. That list had prizes that totalled about $1800. That prize list becomes the official prize list reguardless of the previously advertised list, typos notwithstanding. That $1800 should have been paid. Instead, the players were left looking at eachother as they received less than the officially posted prize. The NSWCA looks cheap and stupid. The prize winners should be sent the outstanding amount. This is the right and proper thing to do.
It is indeed unfortunate for you that you were not at the last Council meeting, otherwise you would know that the Council ruled that the arbiter nor any individual council member has no right to alter the prize fund in any tournament in contravention of what is stated in the advert. The prize fund is to be scaled based on the number of entries.

Therefore any amended prize fund listed was not authorised by the NSWCA Council.

PHAT
19-05-2004, 04:21 PM
Therefore any amended prize fund listed was not authorised by the NSWCA Council.

The posted prizes were made. Due to an inability add and substact, the amounts posted were a little bit high. That mistake should have been worn by the NSWCA or the DOP personally - either one, I don't care much. It is not our interests for the NSWCA to look cheap and/or stupid. At Council I will move that the reneging rip-off be rectified.

PHAT
19-05-2004, 04:34 PM
And a another motion: That for NSWCA events, a player shall be elegable for a prize onlyif they have played 83% of the rounds or greater.{5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9, 10/12}

And another motion: That no player may receive a half-point in the last 3 rounds of a tournament.

And another motion: That the Chairman must step down if he/she wishes to address the Council on any issue.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 04:37 PM
The posted prizes were made. Due to an inability add and substact, the amounts posted were a little bit high. That mistake should have been worn by the NSWCA or the DOP personally - either one, I don't care much. It is not our interests for the NSWCA to look cheap and/or stupid. At Council I will move that the reneging rip-off be rectified.
Good luck.
But it wont happen.

The council decided at its last meeting the conditions surrounding the paying of prizes.
It will not be held responsible for errors made by the arbiter or any other individual whether they be a council member or not.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 04:44 PM
And another motion: That no player may receive a half-point in the last 3 rounds of a tournament.
For 9 round tournaments thats already the case and for 6 or 7 rounds its the last 2 rounds. Given a fair about of debate was spent on this back when the decision was made I seriously doubt it will be changed.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 04:46 PM
And a another motion: That for NSWCA events, a player shall be elegable for a prize onlyif they have played 83% of the rounds or greater.{5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9, 10/12}
I doubt you will get support from the other council members for this.


And another motion: That no player may receive a half-point in the last 3 rounds of a tournament.
Same with this one.


And another motion: That the Chairman must step down if he/she wishes to address the Council on any issue.
And the same for this one. Their is no requirement for this to be the case, especially as a general rule.

arosar
19-05-2004, 04:55 PM
Any lawyers out there amongst you boys? The Council here advertised $1K first prize in 3 separate divisions. Don't they have to honour this?

Airlines and stores have to honour their mistakes - so why not the NSWCA?

AR

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 05:14 PM
Any lawyers out there amongst you boys? The Council here advertised $1K first prize in 3 separate divisions. Don't they have to honour this?

Airlines and stores have to honour their mistakes - so why not the NSWCA?

AR
The same advert tells you to contact Ralph.
The advert will be resent to everyone with correct prizes and new contact details in line with what is on the web page.

Worst case scenario is we would cancel the tournament on the advertised day and run it at another time.

arosar
19-05-2004, 05:23 PM
The same advert tells you to contact Ralph.

But he was the contact person at the time, yes?

AR

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2004, 05:25 PM
Worst case scenario is we would cancel the tournament on the advertised day and run it at another time.

Or just offer a full refund to anyone who has entered under a false impression and isn't willing to play for less money. Of course they would then have to pay the entry fee if they wanted to play in the tournament at the actual prize levels.

As for the case of incorrect prize notices posted during an event, I would be surprised if there is any legal obligation to honour those at all.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 05:27 PM
But he was the contact person at the time, yes?

AR
And your point is?

arosar
19-05-2004, 05:36 PM
And your point is?

You should ask yourself this question.

You clearly invoked his good name to say that as Ralph is no longer with us, then his being the contact person is tantamount to a mistaken information in the advert. But that's simply not true - as he was the contact person at the time we all received the advert.

The NSWCA should do the honourable thing and pay the $1K prize. I'm on the ground Bill, I talk to people. Many, strong players especially, still remember your blunders like the cancelled Rose Bay weekender last year. So many mistakes. Just cop this one and pay up.

AR

arosar
19-05-2004, 06:17 PM
Oh, btw, Bill - I got an idea of saving you money....it's about designing the adverts more efficiently. Notice how 1 or more ads have repeated info in them? It's prolly only a few cents per piece of paper - but if you add 'em mate, it's a saving.

Also, in this day and age of computers and email - you can save money too. You have a database of members right?

AR

PHAT
19-05-2004, 06:33 PM
And the same for this one. Their is no requirement for this to be the case, especially as a general rule.



6. Who is the presiding officer at meetings? Often the president is designated in the constitution or by-laws to chair the organization's meetings. In many groups, however, the chair is assigned to the past-president, special moderator, or to a different person each time on a rotating basis. This allows the president to take a lead in debates on policy rather than maintain a position of "supposed" neutrality which is directly contrary to his or her usual role as spokesperson for the group.

9. During the meeting, the facilitator helps keep the discussion on agreed-upon topics and calls on the speakers. The facilitator needs to draw out quiet people and limit the talkers. If the facilitator is emotionally involved in the topic and has a strong attachment to the outcome, s/he should stand aside and ask someone else to facilitate that topic. The facilitator should try to bring out all viewpoints and look for the underlying agreement. S/he should restate proposals trying to meet the needs of all. Facilitating is a talent. It involves being able to keep a group from straying from the topic, being embroiled in conflict, or falling asleep, while not being perceived as a dictator.


The Chairman may make or second any motion after relinquishing the Chair. The Chairman shall not resume the Chair until after the Commission has acted upon the matter under consideration.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 06:47 PM
You should ask yourself this question.

You clearly invoked his good name to say that as Ralph is no longer with us, then his being the contact person is tantamount to a mistaken information in the advert. But that's simply not true - as he was the contact person at the time we all received the advert.
I'm simply pointing out that there are a number of things on the adsvert that are now incorrect and that the Council will be sending out new adverts.


The NSWCA should do the honourable thing and pay the $1K prize. I'm on the ground Bill, I talk to people.
Don't be a complete goose.
It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that the $1000 mentioned are typing errors. They are far in excess of even the 1st prize.


Many, strong players especially, still remember your blunders like the cancelled Rose Bay weekender last year. So many mistakes. Just cop this one and pay up.
So the Council had a booking problem last year and the Rapid advert had a typing error. Thats two mistakes that the NSWCA have had not many.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 06:55 PM
6. Who is the presiding officer at meetings? Often the president is designated in the constitution or by-laws to chair the organization's meetings. In many groups, however, the chair is assigned to the past-president, special moderator, or to a different person each time on a rotating basis. This allows the president to take a lead in debates on policy rather than maintain a position of "supposed" neutrality which is directly contrary to his or her usual role as spokesperson for the group.
You clearly have not been to many AGM's or meetings then.
The chairman normally only stands aside when he has a conflict of interest in a particular issue.


9. During the meeting, the facilitator helps keep the discussion on agreed-upon topics and calls on the speakers. The facilitator needs to draw out quiet people and limit the talkers. If the facilitator is emotionally involved in the topic and has a strong attachment to the outcome, s/he should stand aside and ask someone else to facilitate that topic. The facilitator should try to bring out all viewpoints and look for the underlying agreement. S/he should restate proposals trying to meet the needs of all. Facilitating is a talent. It involves being able to keep a group from straying from the topic, being embroiled in conflict, or falling asleep, while not being perceived as a dictator.
I doubt you would find any council member who would suggest I have cut them off at a council meeting. In general I have let them continue for too long.


The Chairman may make or second any motion after relinquishing the Chair. The Chairman shall not resume the Chair until after the Commission has acted upon the matter under consideration.
I think you will find that where I have chaired a meeting I have moved or seconded nothing except in the rare circumstances where I was previously directed by council to come back to them with a particular motion. Even then I believe I have asked for someone else to move and second it.

BTW It looks like you lifted that directly from a someone else.

skip to my lou
19-05-2004, 07:08 PM
The NSWCA should do the honourable thing and pay the $1K prize. I'm on the ground Bill, I talk to people.

Don't be a complete goose.
It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that the $1000 mentioned are typing errors. They are far in excess of even the 1st prize.

:lol: rofl, hahahahahaha

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 07:09 PM
Oh, btw, Bill - I got an idea of saving you money....it's about designing the adverts more efficiently. Notice how 1 or more ads have repeated info in them? It's prolly only a few cents per piece of paper - but if you add 'em mate, it's a saving.

Also, in this day and age of computers and email - you can save money too. You have a database of members right?

AR
The council decided that it would do an actual mail out.

We would do email reminders closer to the actual tournaments.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 07:11 PM
:lol: rofl, hahahahahaha
Well spotted. :clap:
I wondered if anyone would notice. :hand:

BoogChoob
19-05-2004, 07:19 PM
Don't be a complete goose.
It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that the $1000 mentioned are typing errors. They are far in excess of even the 1st prize.

Your whole existance is an error.

PHAT
19-05-2004, 08:01 PM
The chairman normally only stands aside when he has a conflict of interest in a particular issue.

Everyone at the NSWCA meetings are there because they are passionate about chess admin. Since you and Peter fill ~80-90% of the airtime, neither of you should be running the meeting too.


In general I have let them continue for too long.

Bull's eye. It is a 200km round trip through the middle of Sydney for me (+ fuel and tolls = $40). And I get home at 1am on a week day. In the two (out of four) meetings I have attended so far, it is 50% gossip, 40% rabbiting on and 10% business. Most of those issues could be voted on via e-mail.



BTW It looks like you lifted that directly from a someone else.

No shit, Shirlock? Do you need the references now too?

Lucena
19-05-2004, 08:15 PM
another motion: That no player may receive a half-point in the last 3 rounds of a tournament.



Down with those draws eh matthew! That will definitely make it more exciting :D

Lucena
19-05-2004, 08:37 PM
And a another motion: That for NSWCA events, a player shall be elegable for a prize onlyif they have played 83% of the rounds or greater.{5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9, 10/12}

And another motion: That no player may receive a half-point in the last 3 rounds of a tournament.



On a more serious note though, I don't think those suggestions are unreasonable. Assuming the second point refers to half-point byes as it obviously does.

Lucena
19-05-2004, 08:40 PM
You should ask yourself this question.

You clearly invoked his good name to say that as Ralph is no longer with us, then his being the contact person is tantamount to a mistaken information in the advert. But that's simply not true - as he was the contact person at the time we all received the advert.

The NSWCA should do the honourable thing and pay the $1K prize. I'm on the ground Bill, I talk to people. Many, strong players especially, still remember your blunders like the cancelled Rose Bay weekender last year. So many mistakes. Just cop this one and pay up.

AR

I hope you're not being serious about this one Amiel :eh:

Lucena
19-05-2004, 08:43 PM
Well spotted. :clap:
I wondered if anyone would notice. :hand:

I don't get it :confused:

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 09:55 PM
Everyone at the NSWCA meetings are there because they are passionate about chess admin. Since you and Peter fill ~80-90% of the airtime, neither of you should be running the meeting too.Perhaps because we know 80-90% of what is going on because we are actively involved with it.



Bull's eye. It is a 200km round trip through the middle of Sydney for me (+ fuel and tolls = $40). And I get home at 1am on a week day. In the two (out of four) meetings I have attended so far, it is 50% gossip, 40% rabbiting on and 10% business. Most of those issues could be voted on via e-mail.
Well you could at least do the decent thing and an apology.
I would suggest its about 5% gossip usually during the coffee break,15% rabbiting on because I havent cut people off but allowed them to say what they want, and 80% business.
As for email voting your contribution in the past 3 months has been about 1% if that.


No shit, Shirlock? Do you need the references now too?
Well it certainly did not look like original thought on your part.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 09:57 PM
I don't get it :confused:
I had a typing error in the word typing.
I corrected after Jeo spotted it.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 10:05 PM
On a more serious note though, I don't think those suggestions are unreasonable. Assuming the second point refers to half-point byes as it obviously does.
83% is far to restrictive and is totally unjustified.
If any sort of limit were to be implemented then 50% should be a minimum and 66.666% should be the maximum.
The current Council policy is no more than two half point byes and those are at the discretion of the Arbiter and absolutely no half point byes in the last 1/3 of a tournament. This has been in effect for the last few years without any complaints by players up until Matt's self indulgent whinge.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 10:08 PM
Your whole existance is an error.
Another useless post by a gutless anonymous moron.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2004, 10:31 PM
Everyone at the NSWCA meetings are there because they are passionate about chess admin. Since you and Peter fill ~80-90% of the airtime, neither of you should be running the meeting too.

Hey, [snip] you can say what you like about me but Peter Cassettari is not here to defend himself.
As such your unprovoked attack on him is a disgrace. Then again what else is new.
Of course what more could we expect from a moron whose contribution to chess would not even be 1% of Peter's.

PHAT
20-05-2004, 07:16 AM
Hey, [snip] you can say what you like about me but Peter Cassettari is not here to defend himself.
As such your unprovoked attack on him is a disgrace.

Hey, [snip]. I made no attack on Peter or you about your contributions to the meetings. I only said that you two are the contributers of the vast marority of the meeting's substance. That is not an attack.

As such your unprovoked attack on me is a disgrace. Then again what else is new.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2004, 09:31 AM
Hey, [snip]. I made no attack on Peter or you about your contributions to the meetings. I only said that you two are the contributers of the vast marority of the meeting's substance. That is not an attack.
Ok I'll leave it to others to determine if the way you phrased it was construed as an attack. It certainly did not look like praise.

Alan Shore
20-05-2004, 07:35 PM
Ok I'll leave it to others to determine if the way you phrased it was construed as an attack. It certainly did not look like praise.

I didn't see it as an attack, maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek but that's all...

PHAT
20-05-2004, 08:29 PM
Your whole existance is an error.

This is an abuse of the advatages of anonimity. BG does not deserve this crap.

Lucena
30-05-2004, 09:25 PM
One thing that didn't impress me about this tournament was how Bolens was allowed to play without entry fee :naughty:

PHAT
30-05-2004, 09:56 PM
One thing that didn't impress me about this tournament was how Bolens was allowed to play without entry fee :naughty:

:eek:

A number of times I have borght a book from him on the day just so hecan enter. He is in nead of some compassion, dude, i think , ok . on offence ment.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 12:44 PM
The August weeekender at Rose Bay will be a 7 round event.

Lucena
01-06-2004, 09:12 AM
The August weeekender at Rose Bay will be a 7 round event.

Splendid :clap: Does anyone know what the schedule will be?

PHAT
01-06-2004, 09:29 AM
Splendid :clap: Does anyone know what the schedule will be?

There will be a thieving BYE in all 7 rounds. :evil:

There will be two half point BYEs for anyone who wants them.:evil:

The event will start a minimum of 30 minutes late because officials have not prepared themselves for competant use of SwissPerfect on a particular PC. :evil:

The prize giving will be a minimum of 30 minutes after the final game (holding up everyone from going home), because officials have less than primary school abilities in arithmatic. :evil: