PDA

View Full Version : Nsw Open 2004



Bill Gletsos
30-05-2004, 06:41 PM
2004 NSW Open


The NSW Chess Association Inc. invites your participation in this category 3 Grand Prix Event $3600 in prizes Guaranteed.

Run in 2 divisions Open & U1600

Where:
Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club
117 Ryedale Rd, West Ryde (1 minute from West Ryde Station)

When:
Saturday 12th / Sunday 13th / Monday 14th June

Director:
Charles Zworestine [International Arbiter]

Time Control:
FIDE time control 90 minutes + 30 seconds per move from the start

Entry Fees:
Adult: $90.00 Junior [u/18]: $70.00 Junior [u/14]: $50.00
Entries will be accepted on the day.
Register by Friday 11th for $20discount(adults) or $10 discount for juniors(phone or email, details below.)

Schedule:
Saturday
noon-12:30 Registration; 12:30 Round 1; 6:30 round 2;

Sunday
10:30 Round 3; 3:00 round 4; 7:00 round 5;

Monday
10:30 Round 6; 3:00 round 7; 7:00 presentation

Prizes:
Open Tournament Prizes
1st $1000, 2nd $600 3rd $400 4th $300 5th $250, 1800-1999 1st $200 2nd $125, U1800 1st $200 2nd $125.
Under 1600 Tournament Prizes
U1600 1st $600 2nd $400 3rd $300, 1350-1499 1st $200 U1350 1st $200.


Prize fund of $4900 is based on 84 entries. $3600 is guaranteed including 1st prize in the Open and the U1600 tournaments by the NSWCA

The tournament will be FIDE rated
Players are eligible for only 1 prize.
All NSW resident players must be members of (or join) the NSWCA or the NSWJCL
For further information contact Charles Zworesine by telephone [0410 563965], email charlesz@ozemail.com.au

Lucena
30-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Well all I can say is they'd better not let Bolens in without paying the entry fee like they did at the May Weekender :mad: I hope the NSWCA gets its money back.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2004, 07:47 PM
Bolens always pays...eventually. :whistle:

Lucena
30-05-2004, 08:05 PM
Bolens always pays...eventually. :whistle:

Will they let me do that too?

PHAT
30-05-2004, 08:30 PM
Will they let me do that too?

I'ld rather he take a shower and riase his bood sugar level. :uhoh:

Ummm. acuallity I have alot of tiyme for old bolens. At least he's got a style , ;)

PHAT
30-05-2004, 08:34 PM
[center]2004 NSW Open
Entry Fees:
Adult: $90.00 Junior [u/18]: $70.00 Junior [u/14]: $50.00


FMD! , is this the knda entry fee that happenwhen I am on the bludge?

<edit>$90.

I hope we get a striupper too.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2004, 09:01 PM
FMD! , is this the knda entry fee that happenwhen I am on the bludge?
Well the advert was circulated numerous times over the past few months between council members for comment.
You had your opportunity to make a comment.
You made none.


<edit>$90.
Well its $70 if you pre enter.

Also the prize money for the U1600 division is the most for a weekender with the Doeberl Minor being the only exception I believe.

Lucena
30-05-2004, 09:11 PM
Who's expressed interest so far do you know Bill?

PHAT
30-05-2004, 09:35 PM
Well the advert was circulated numerous times over the past few months between council members for comment.
You had your opportunity to make a comment.
You made none. [quote]

I spose you dodny read the bit that said I been on the bludge. But you gota make yourself out to be a big man and have a go at someone not for their commen t baut for who they are Omy toolman.


[quote]Well its $70 if you pre enter.

still way big - maybe te same as the dEoberl -cannot recall at the moment.


Also the prize money for the U1600 division is the most for a weekender with the Doeberl Minor being the only exception I believe. sSo what ? THe NSW Open is noting compared to the DEOBERL, and shunting the entry up and up wil not make it so.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2004, 11:29 PM
I spose you dodny read the bit that said I been on the bludge. But you gota make yourself out to be a big man and have a go at someone not for their commen t baut for who they are Omy toolman.
No I was just pointing out you have no excuse for posting rubbish.


still way big - maybe te same as the dEoberl -cannot recall at the moment.
I never mentioned the entry fee in relation to Doeberl, you drunken fool.


sSo what ? THe NSW Open is noting compared to the DEOBERL, and shunting the entry up and up wil not make it so.
Again you miss the point you moron.
The aim was to offer a reasonable prize fund for the lower rated players.
Of course you would know this if you attended council meetings or even it seems read the emails between council members related to it.

PHAT
30-05-2004, 11:34 PM
I never mentioned the entry fee in relation to Doeberl, you fool.

But i HAVE you sober bully



Again you miss the point you moron.
The aim was to offer a reasonable prize fund for the lower rated players. Of course you would know this if you attended council meetings...

So, one has to be on the NSWCA Council to know this???? A REASONABLE PRIZE FUND FOR LOWER PALYER COULD BE ACHIEVED BY REDUCING THE OPEN PRIZES RATHER THAN DEAMNDING A TON FROM ORDINAARY PLAYERS.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2004, 11:46 PM
But i HAVE you sober bully
If you are so stupid to post drink thats your problem.


So, one has to be on the NSWCA Council to know this???? A REASONABLE PRIZE FUND FOR LOWER PALYER COULD BE ACHIEVED BY REDUCING THE OPEN PRIZES RATHER THAN DEAMNDING A TON FROM ORDINAARY PLAYERS.
No you cretin.
If you had attended council meetings you would have understood the reasons for the entry fees and the prize money. In fact you would know if you bothetred to read emails.
Of course you appear to do neither.
You are a complete joke.

The Council wants to promote the NSW Open as its major long weekend event.
We want good prize money for the top players and the lower rated players. Its not an either or situation.

PHAT
31-05-2004, 12:04 AM
The Council wants to promote the NSW Open as its major long weekend event.
We want good prize money for the top players and the lower rated players. Its not an either/or situation.

Do the NDWCA members know this? No. ALl they see is $90 in the red.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 12:09 AM
Do the NDWCA members know this? No. ALl they see is $90 in the red.
I suspect the NDWCA dont know this, but the NSWCA members should.
It was stated at last years Open that the NSW Open was going to be our main event. It was also mentioned again at the NSWCA AGM.

Finally its $70 if they pre enter.

Brian_Jones
31-05-2004, 08:26 AM
If the NSW Open is the main event for 2004, then why are the details released so late, why no mention of seperate Womens event and why no advertising in Australian Chess. Is NSWCA trying to organise events by commitee (which never works) and has it lost the momentum created by the successful event in 2003?

Garvinator
31-05-2004, 11:25 AM
If the NSW Open is the main event for 2004, then why are the details released so late, why no mention of seperate Womens event and why no advertising in Australian Chess. Is NSWCA trying to organise events by commitee (which never works) and has it lost the momentum created by the successful event in 2003?
i have known details of this tournament for a couple of months as i looked at www.nswca.org.au

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 11:41 AM
If the NSW Open is the main event for 2004, then why are the details released so late, why no mention of seperate Womens event and why no advertising in Australian Chess. Is NSWCA trying to organise events by commitee (which never works) and has it lost the momentum created by the successful event in 2003?
Brian the details have been on the NSWCA site since early January.
The only major change to the tournament was the addition of a U1600 event and a corresponding change to the prize fund.
The NSWCA decided to do a direct mailout rather than take out an advert.
This was done a few weeks back, but with the untimely death of Ralph it was decided to do a new mailout(since he was mentioned as the contact on virtually all of them) which occurred yesterday. We therefore took the opportunity to make some changes to the various adverts. All those NSWCA members with email addresses will receive also receive them via email as the tournaments approach.

The womens event is an entirely seperate event. It just happens to be run on the same weekend at the same venue as the NSW Open.
The womens event had been organised by Ralph and he and Charles Z had discussed it with a number of the women players to determine when it was most desirable to run it.

Trent Parker
31-05-2004, 03:04 PM
Matt, i think what we (the NSWCA) are trying to do is to build the NSW Open to be like a Doberl. Of course I personaly dont really expect it to get as big as doberl, but close to it.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 03:10 PM
Exactly Trent. It wont happen overnight but that is the aim.
We guaranteed $2500 for the 2003 NSW Open with $2800 in prizes actually advertised. We paid the full $2800. He had 80 entries.

This year we have guaranteed $3600 but have advertised $4900. If we get 84 entries this year we will pay the full $4900.

Trent Parker
31-05-2004, 03:18 PM
ok i'll shut my mouth :silenced:

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 03:20 PM
If you look at the Doeberl prize money and the entry fees it appears a major part if not all of the prize money is funded by the entry fees.

Brian_Jones
01-06-2004, 09:17 AM
NSW Open is great for strong players. But the majority of players in NSW are U1600. I understood that in 2003 some of the players complained that the timetable was too slow. Now we have an U1600 event with good prizemoney. Only problem is the timetable is still too slow and the new section is advertised too late. It certainly should be attractive to U1600 players. But some may have already made other plans for the long weekend! Why wasn't the decision to run an U1600 event taken earlier? (The Doeberl Cup commitee decide these things and get entry forms out months in advance!)

Lucena
01-06-2004, 09:29 AM
i have known details of this tournament for a couple of months as i looked at www.nswca.org.au
Does that mean you're going to play Garvin?

Garvinator
01-06-2004, 09:46 AM
Does that mean you're going to play Garvin?

reduce the damn airfares and i will come :lol: i can get airfares to perth for $149 at the moment or $95 approx to sydney. You tell me which is better value for money when you have $320 credit with qantas and virgin.

I am trying to find out if there is some tournament in perth in the next two weekends as I dont think the WACA site is accurate. I have emailed the WACA president and am now awaiting a reply.

Lucena
01-06-2004, 09:50 AM
reduce the damn airfares and i will come :lol: i can get airfares to perth for $149 at the moment or $95 approx to sydney. You tell me which is better value for money when you have $320 credit with qantas and virgin.

I am trying to find out if there is some tournament in perth in the next two weekends as I dont think the WACA site is accurate. I have emailed the WACA president and am now awaiting a reply.
95 dollars to sydney is pretty cheap though

Garvinator
01-06-2004, 10:13 AM
95 dollars to sydney is pretty cheap though
probably, but not when compared to $149 at this time for perth :uhoh: and jetstar dont fly from brisbane to sydney at the moment, they only go to newcastle from here. I would have to travel to gold coast to get a plane to sydney.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2004, 10:42 AM
NSW Open is great for strong players. But the majority of players in NSW are U1600. I understood that in 2003 some of the players complained that the timetable was too slow. Now we have an U1600 event with good prizemoney. Only problem is the timetable is still too slow and the new section is advertised too late. It certainly should be attractive to U1600 players. But some may have already made other plans for the long weekend! Why wasn't the decision to run an U1600 event taken earlier? (The Doeberl Cup commitee decide these things and get entry forms out months in advance!)
Well we all know your views on time controls. ;)
However for it to be FIDE rated there are certain requirements for time controls and the majority of strong players want a time limit of at least 90mins + 30secs a move.
As for players complaining about the time control being to slow that was not actually the case. The complint by a few players was that the Sunday with the 3 rounds is rather long. Unfortunately there is not much you can do about it.
The NSW Open was succesful last year and therefore the plan was to run the it along the same lines as last year.
The NSW Open advert has been on the NSWCA web site since January. We got 80 players last year and we are hoping for at least that number this year.
In mid April it was decided to try and increase the appeal by introducing a seperate U1600 section with good prize money.
This U1600 section was advertised in the mailout in early May.

Trent Parker
01-06-2004, 03:29 PM
I wonder if Anthony Keuning will play.... or has his rating dropped below 1600??

Lucena
04-06-2004, 04:03 PM
I wonder if Anthony Keuning will play.... or has his rating dropped below 1600??
Would you believe it-it's 1610-just over!

Garvinator
09-06-2004, 07:10 PM
i am coming to sydney for the nsw open, can i enter for $70 by saying that im coming and flights, accommodation are booked already :D

Trent Parker
10-06-2004, 02:31 AM
i'm not playing. Gotta study for exams. That is the only problem about having the NSW open at this time of year. I have never played in a NSW open/QB w/ender because of university studies.

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2004, 06:34 PM
82 players are taking part.
GM Ian Rogers is the top seed.

jenni
13-06-2004, 10:57 AM
82 players are taking part.
GM Ian Rogers is the top seed.

I understand Michael Lip's 21st had a bit of an impact on numbers :) However the ACT seems to have an even bigger contingent than last year (although 2 have been diverted across to the Women's Championships.)

Garvinator
14-06-2004, 10:16 PM
RESULTS FOR 2004 NSW OPEN:

Open Division

1st: Ian Rogers 7.0
2nd: A. Ayvazyan 5.5
Equal 3rd : G. Xie, M. Wei, R.Song 5.0

Under 1999- 1800 Rating Division

Equal 1st: B. Murray, J. Ikeda 4.5pts

Under 1800 Rating Division

1st our own alexmdc :owned: 4.5/7


Under 1600 Tournament

1st: S. Guo- Yuthok 6.0

Equal 2nd: N. Greenwood, D. Bisson 5.5

1350 - 1500 Rating Division

1st A. Guzel 4.5

Under 1350 Rating Division

Equal 1st: Lloyd R Fell, M. Beltrami, A. Brown 4.0



NSW WOMENS CHAMPIONSHIPS

1st: S. Sarai 6.0
2nd: A. Song 5.5

Equal top juniors: T. Oliver and V. Reid 2.5

Rincewind
14-06-2004, 11:24 PM
Under 1800 Rating Division

1st our own alexmdc :owned: 4.5/7

:clap:

Alex has put together some impressive results lately. I doubt he will qualify for this rating division for much longer. ;)

(I note he hasn't been too active on the BB during is current reign of terror at the chess board. Could these two situations be somehow related. :hmm: )


Equal top juniors: T. Oliver and V. Reid 2.5

Where were the parochial comments for one of our Olivers and our own Candy-Cane?

:clap:

jenni
14-06-2004, 11:57 PM
Equal 1st: Lloyd R Fell, M. Bertani, A. Brown 4.0

is this perhaps Matthew Beltrami? I heard he was doing quite well.

Garvinator
15-06-2004, 08:26 AM
is this perhaps Matthew Beltrami? I heard he was doing quite well.
it is, thank you for picking that up. i have corrected the results.

Garvinator
15-06-2004, 08:28 AM
=Barry Cox Where were the parochial comments for one of our Olivers and our own Candy-Cane? :clap:
if i made any comments regarding candy's good form, they could be misconstrued, considering my age and all and the fact that i was speaking to her a bit yesterday :whistle: :doh:

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 08:31 AM
if i made any comments regarding candy's good form, they could be misconstrued, considering my age and all and the fact that i was speaking to her a bit yesterday :whistle: :doh:

........

Garvinator
15-06-2004, 08:34 AM
........
what does that mean :confused:

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 08:42 AM
what does that mean :confused:

Misconstrued in what way then? Just an odd thing for you to say..

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 12:41 PM
No Name Feder Rtg Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Rogers, Ian NSW 2582 2646 7 22:W 18:W 27:W 2:W 3:W 10:W 8:W
2 Ayvazyan, Armen NSW 2219 2121 5.5 29:W 20:W 19:W 1:L 13:W 6:W 4:D
3 Xie, George NSW 2281 2319 5 13:W 5:W 6:D 11:W 1:L 7:D 20:W
4 Wei, Michael ACT 2111 1953 5 24:W 35:L 23:W 31:W 15:D 9:W 2:D
5 Song, Raymond NSW 1944 1903 5 44:W 3:L 37:W 25:L 22:W 31:W 15:W
6 Camer, Angelito NSW 2084 2077 4.5 37:W 12:W 3:D 10:D 25:W 2:L 14:D
7 Bolens, Johny NSW 2211 2061 4.5 33:D 40:W 8:W 15:D 9:D 3:D 10:D
8 Kabir, Ruhul NSW 2228 2244 4.5 38:D 25:W 7:L 16:W 19:W 17:W 1:L
9 Agulto, Edgardo NSW 2180 2113 4.5 28:W 27:L 21:W 12:W 7:D 4:L 23:W
10 Goris, Robert NSW 2191 2190 4.5 16:D 33:W 35:W 6:D 24:W 1:L 7:D
11 Compton, Alistair OS 2112 2112 4.5 40:D 16:W 26:W 3:L 23:D 13:D 24:W
12 Ikeda, Junta ACT 1819 4.5 46:W 6:L 30:W 9:L 28:W 19:W 17:D
13 Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 1782 4.5 3:L 44:W 46:W 18:W 2:L 11:D 26:W
14 Murray, Bruce D NSW 1877 4.5 49:W 48:L 32:D 47:W 18:W 15:D 6:D
15 Schultz-Pedersen, Jesper OS 2220 2180 4 21:D 38:W 17:W 7:D 4:D 14:D 5:L
16 Illingworth, Max NSW 1761 4 10:D 11:L 38:W 8:L 32:W 27:W 29:D
17 Capilitan, Romeo NSW 2179 2005 4 39:W 23:D 15:L 42:W 26:W 8:L 12:D
18 Peters, Duncan NSW 1911 4 42:W 1:L 39:W 13:L 14:L 37:W 30:W
19 Chan, Jason NSW 2183 1978 4 45:W 31:W 2:L 35:W 8:L 12:L 33:W
20 Hu, Jason NSW 1885 4 41:W 2:L 45:L 39:W 21:W 34:W 3:L
21 Ali, Mosaddeque ACT 2042 1746 4 15:D 51:D 9:L 44:W 20:L 36:W 31:W
22 Grcic, Milan ACT 1798 4 1:L 41:L 40:W 30:W 5:L 45:W 34:W
23 Rout, Ian C ACT 1885 3.5 32:W 17:D 4:L 45:W 11:D 24:D 9:L
24 Dick, David W NSW 1982 3.5 4:L 47:W 28:W 27:W 10:L 23:D 11:L
25 Tse, Jeffrey NSW 1500 3.5 43:W 8:L 51:W 5:W 6:L 26:L 28:D
26 Suttor, Vincent NSW 2022 1884 3.5 34:W 0:D 11:L 32:W 17:L 25:W 13:L
27 Lovejoy, David QLD 1853 3.5 36:W 9:W 1:L 24:L 29:D 16:L 40:W
28 Descallar, Levi NSW 1724 3.5 9:L 34:W 24:L 41:W 12:L 47:W 25:D
29 Huang, Justin NSW 2106 1727 3.5 2:L 32:L 49:W 36:W 27:D 33:D 16:D
30 Dickson, Ian C NSW 1649 3 48:L 52:W 12:L 22:L 49:W 35:W 18:L
31 Barisic, Frank NSW 1818 3 52:W 19:L 41:W 4:L 45:W 5:L 21:L
32 Keuning, Anthony V NSW 1610 3 23:L 29:W 14:D 26:L 16:L 41:W 38:D
33 Redgrave, John NSW 1811 3 7:D 10:L 42:L 50:W 37:W 29:D 19:L
34 Nicholson, Scott NSW 1603 3 26:L 28:L 52:+ 43:W 35:W 20:L 22:L
35 Lau, Eddie ACT 1799 3 50:W 4:W 10:L 19:L 34:L 30:L 42:W
36 Sewell, Robert NSW 1524 3 27:L 37:L 0:W 29:L 39:W 21:L 45:W
37 Savelieff, Geoffrey NSW 1698 3 6:L 36:W 5:L 46:W 33:L 18:L 47:W
38 Tomas, Tom NSW 1774 3 8:D 15:L 16:L 40:D 44:W 42:D 32:D
39 Buza, Muhamed NSW 1672 3 17:L 49:W 18:L 20:L 36:L 50:W 46:W
40 Yum, Brenton NSW 1723 2.5 11:D 7:L 22:L 38:D 41:D 43:W 27:L
41 Grbin, Tereza NSW 1612 2.5 20:L 22:W 31:L 28:L 40:D 32:L 0:W
42 Escribano, Jose NSW 1640 2.5 18:L 43:D 33:W 17:L 47:D 38:D 35:L
43 Rachmadi, Herman NSW 1824 2.5 25:L 42:D 47:L 34:L 46:W 40:L 44:W
44 Urdanegui, Abel NSW 1622 2 5:L 13:L 50:W 21:L 38:L 51:+ 43:L
45 Trkulja, Slavko NSW 1644 2 19:L 50:W 20:W 23:L 31:L 22:L 36:L
46 Miranda, Adrian NSW 1458 2 12:L 0:W 13:L 37:L 43:L 49:W 39:L
47 Xu, William NSW 1410 2 51:D 24:L 43:W 14:L 42:D 28:L 37:L
48 Ilic, Ilija NSW 2120 1980 2 30:W 14:W 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:
49 Korbe, Heinrich NSW 1546 1.5 14:L 39:L 29:L 0:W 30:L 46:L 50:D
50 McDonald, David NSW 1.5 35:L 45:L 44:L 33:L 0:W 39:L 49:D
51 Tomac, Jack NSW 1819 1 47:D 21:D 25:L 0:L 0:L 44:- 0:
52 Cameron, Jole NSW 0 31:L 30:L 34:- 0: 0: 0: 0:

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 12:43 PM
U1600


No Name Feder Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Guo-Yuthok, Sherab ACT 1560 6 20:L 25:W 24:W 13:W 2:W 5:W 6:W
2 Bisson, Danny Wayne NSW 1510 5.5 28:W 4:W 7:W 3:D 1:L 10:W 5:W
3 Greenwood, Norman NSW 1513 5.5 19:W 20:W 9:W 2:D 5:D 8:D 11:W
4 Cannings, Stephen NSW 5 22:W 2:L 14:W 6:L 15:W 9:W 8:W
5 Guzel, Adam NSW 1457 4.5 27:W 18:W 11:W 12:W 3:D 1:L 2:L
6 Kresinger, Frank NSW 1547 4.5 17:W 8:D 12:L 4:W 18:W 16:W 1:L
7 Nikolaou, Chris NSW 1540 4.5 21:W 24:W 2:L 8:D 9:L 17:W 16:W
8 Boyce, Jamie NSW 1395 4 16:W 6:D 18:D 7:D 12:W 3:D 4:L
9 Trzin, Gojko NSW 1595 4 10:W 13:W 3:L 16:L 7:W 4:L 22:W
10 Beltrami, Matthew ACT 1300 4 9:L 28:W 19:W 11:W 16:D 2:L 12:D
11 Dick, Graham NSW 1537 4 29:W 14:W 5:L 10:L 25:W 13:W 3:L
12 Pickering, Anthony NSW 1537 4 25:D 23:W 6:W 5:L 8:L 24:W 10:D
13 Evans, David A NSW 1510 4 30:W 9:L 20:W 1:L 26:W 11:L 18:W
14 Brown, Andrew ACT 1325 4 26:W 11:L 4:L 18:L 30:W 19:W 23:W
15 Fell, Lloyd R NSW 1253 4 18:L 19:L 21:W 30:W 4:L 26:W 24:W
16 Tracey, Michael J NSW 1401 3.5 8:L 29:W 30:W 9:W 10:D 6:L 7:L
17 Davies, Duncan NSW 1165 3.5 6:L 26:W 25:L 19:D 20:W 7:L 27:W
18 Katnic, Eddy NSW 1580 3 15:W 5:L 8:D 14:W 6:L 22:D 13:L
19 Jenkins, Michael NSW 3 3:L 15:W 10:L 17:D 28:D 14:L 25:W
20 Wilkie, Mary E NSW 1252 3 1:W 3:L 13:L 26:L 17:L 30:W 28:W
21 Gray, Garvin QLD 1133 3 7:L 22:D 15:L 0:D 0:D 28:D 26:W
22 Jeffreys, Roger W NSW 1490 3 4:L 21:D 27:W 25:D 24:D 18:D 9:L
23 Art, Carl NSW 1581 3 24:L 12:L 28:L 27:W 29:W 25:W 14:L
24 Sweeney, Matthew NSW 1257 2.5 23:W 7:L 1:L 28:W 22:D 12:L 15:L
25 Oliver, Anthony ACT 998 2 12:D 1:L 17:W 22:D 11:L 23:L 19:L
26 Tsui, Byron NSW 2 14:L 17:L 29:W 20:W 13:L 15:L 21:L
27 Hoang, Cimaine NSW 2 5:L 0:D 22:L 23:L 0:D 29:W 17:L
28 Guo, Emma ACT 808 2 2:L 10:L 23:W 24:L 19:D 21:D 20:L
29 Beltrami, Michael ACT 1077 2 11:L 16:L 26:L 0:W 23:L 27:L 30:W
30 Tsui, Edison NSW 377 1 13:L 0:W 16:L 15:L 14:L 20:L 29:L

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 12:44 PM
NSW Womens


1 Sarai, Slavica NSW 2106 2126 6 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
2 Song, Angela NSW 1806 1673 5.5 0 * 1 1 1 1 1
3 Oliver, Shannon ACT 2025 1657 4.5 0 * 1 1 1
4 Lane, Nancy L NSW 1985 1812 4 0 0 * 1 1 1
5 Oliver, Tamzin L ACT 1133 2.5 0 0 0 0 * 1 1
6 Reid, Vaness NSW 1637 2.5 0 0 0 0 * 1 1
7 Evans, Carrie NSW 1349 1.5 0 0 0 0 *
8 Ng, Deborah NSW 1068 1.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 *

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2004, 05:26 PM
How on earth did Sarai lose to a player rated 1068 who only scored one draw aside from that? Was it something odd like a forfeit, a mobile phone DQ or a freak blunder? 1000+ point upsets aren't exactly common.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 05:34 PM
How on earth did Sarai lose to a player rated 1068 who only scored one draw aside from that? Was it something odd like a forfeit, a mobile phone DQ or a freak blunder? 1000+ point upsets aren't exactly common.

None of the above. It is pure Glicko accuracy.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:45 PM
How on earth did Sarai lose to a player rated 1068 who only scored one draw aside from that? Was it something odd like a forfeit, a mobile phone DQ or a freak blunder? 1000+ point upsets aren't exactly common.

Maybe she played her in the final round, had already won the tourn and was feeling generous? Or perhaps a misprint in the results? I'm curious too.

Ian_Rogers
15-06-2004, 05:49 PM
Sarai's loss came in the first round - she looked shaky in some of her early games but was playing well by the end of the tournament. Sarai won a piece against Ng within the first 10 moves, then got rather slack and was outplayed. I didn't see the final position when Sarai lost on time but it's clear that, apart from the opening blunder, the result wasn't a travesty of justice.

Ian

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:58 PM
Sarai's loss came in the first round - she looked shaky in some of her early games but was playing well by the end of the tournament. Sarai won a piece against Ng within the first 10 moves, then got rather slack and was outplayed. I didn't see the final position when Sarai lost on time but it's clear that, apart from the opening blunder, the result wasn't a travesty of justice.

Ian

Interesting, congratulations to Deborah! Another first round upset too, to go with me beating Smerdon in December.. something about those first rounds seem to catch people off guard, hopefully starter sees this, hehe.

Ian, have you ever had any shock results such as this since becoming a world-class player?

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 10:38 PM
...........with me beating Smerdon in December.. something about those first rounds seem to catch people off guard, hopefully starter sees this, hehe.



I thought we went down this line before. Was your win in RAPID?

starter

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 11:01 PM
None of the above. It is pure Glicko accuracy.
Can't help demonstraing your stupidity can you.
Sarai's ACF Elo rating would be 2089 and her opponents 987, so its not a Glicko thing.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 11:55 PM
Can't help demonstraing your stupidity can you.
Sarai's ACF Elo rating would be 2089 and her opponents 987, so its not a Glicko thing.

And you cannot tell the whole story.

ACF Glicko says
Sarai (2126)
Ng (1068)

Yep, relative to eachother, they are rated well.

Bill Gletsos
16-06-2004, 09:36 AM
And you cannot tell the whole story.

ACF Glicko says
Sarai (2126)
Ng (1068)
Dont be a complete cretin.
I posted the crosstable.
It was obvious from that what their respective Glicko ratings were.
So obvious in fact that it drew the original comment from Kevin.


Yep, relative to eachother, they are rated well.
Yes based on submitted results they are accurately rated.

Ian Rout
16-06-2004, 11:43 AM
I understand Michael Lip's 21st had a bit of an impact on numbers :) However the ACT seems to have an even bigger contingent than last year.
Just in case nobody noticed, 13 players out of 90 were from ACT (I don't think we can claim Eddie Lau any more though he is still listed as ACT), or more than twice the representation per capita of Sydney.

Canberra was even more strongly represented among the prizewinners: =3rd (Michael Wei), =1st U/2000 (Junta Ikeda), winner of the U/1600 tournament (Sherab Guo-Yuthok), 2 x =1st U/1350 in the U/1600 (Andrew Brown, Matthew Beltrami), =1st junior in the Womens (Tamzin Oliver). Fortunately for the locals the ACT adults were not so successful.

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2004, 01:06 PM
Sarai won a piece against Ng within the first 10 moves, then got rather slack and was outplayed.

Even more amazing. I wonder how often a player has won from a piece down against someone rated over 1000 points higher. Still, I sympathise, it's easy to get complacent and start drifting when you have the kind of position where your opponent is so lost that it's hard to see them recovering.

jenni
16-06-2004, 02:39 PM
Even more amazing. I wonder how often a player has won from a piece down against someone rated over 1000 points higher. Still, I sympathise, it's easy to get complacent and start drifting when you have the kind of position where your opponent is so lost that it's hard to see them recovering.
From what Shannon told me Slavica didn't understand the time control and let her time run out, however it is amazing that a piece up, she needed to use that much time to finish the game.

(Not that I could do any better - I often lose games when I am up multiple pieces, but she is in a different league to me. )

PHAT
16-06-2004, 04:35 PM
Yes based on submitted results they are accurately rated.

And based on reality of the players' current apparent abilities, the 1000+ differential seems way to big. Glick to the rescue? I don't think so.

Garvinator
16-06-2004, 04:40 PM
And based on reality of the players' current apparent abilities, the 1000+ differential seems way to big. Glick to the rescue? I don't think so.
i would say that take account of the players results in the whole tournament, not just one game.

PHAT
16-06-2004, 04:53 PM
i would say that take account of the players results in the whole tournament, not just one game.

What a lot of statasticians hate is the fact that outliers exist. For their own lazy purposes, they like to ignore them like a camp uncle. Unfortunately, this leads to:
1. a pointier normal curve
2. a loss of information that shows the curve to be asymetric.

This results in a rating alorithm that may over/under react at the top and bottom of the spread, because it assumes all chess players are perfectly elastic spherical bodies.

Bill Gletsos
16-06-2004, 05:08 PM
And based on reality of the players' current apparent abilities, the 1000+ differential seems way to big. Glick to the rescue? I don't think so.
Actually I doubt there is a problem.
It just looks like Slavica is performing to her rating as is Deborah if you look at all of their results.

Bill Gletsos
16-06-2004, 05:10 PM
What a lot of statasticians hate is the fact that outliers exist. For their own lazy purposes, they like to ignore them like a camp uncle. Unfortunately, this leads to:
1. a pointier normal curve
2. a loss of information that shows the curve to be asymetric.

This results in a rating alorithm that may over/under react at the top and bottom of the spread, because it assumes all chess players are perfectly elastic spherical bodies.
On what basis do you make is statement.
After all each game is rated individually.
Anyway a players performance rating for a period indicates if they are improving or not irrespective of any upsets.

PHAT
16-06-2004, 06:10 PM
On what basis do you make is statement.


Which statement? I made several.

Bill Gletsos
16-06-2004, 06:17 PM
Which statement? I made several.
This one:

This results in a rating alorithm that may over/under react at the top and bottom of the spread, because it assumes all chess players are perfectly elastic spherical bodies.

Rincewind
16-06-2004, 09:06 PM
What a lot of statasticians hate is the fact that outliers exist. For their own lazy purposes, they like to ignore them like a camp uncle. Unfortunately, this leads to:
1. a pointier normal curve
2. a loss of information that shows the curve to be asymetric.

This results in a rating alorithm that may over/under react at the top and bottom of the spread, because it assumes all chess players are perfectly elastic spherical bodies.

I think the removal of outliers is a practice promoted by experimenters, not staticians. They (the experimenters) like to ignore them as it makes the application of the mathematics simpler. It also depends on the sample size in question. This discussion seems to be mostly centred on a sample size of 1!

The interesting thing about a +1000 point upset is it may not be as unlikely as you think. Probably around 1 every 300 games or so (compare that to a 700 point upset which is around once every 60 games). So while when you see it, you think there is some problem, you probably only see them as often as one might expect.

I believe sociologists have a term for this phenomenon (the belief that exceptions occur more frequently than they actually do) but I can't recall it right now. It seems to afflict a chess players in particular who think their rating is being kept artifically low because they have a good tournament or upset a couple of strong players.

However, the rating system provides a self-fulfilling function. If you play consistently to a particular strength your rating will move to match. If you claim the occasional scalp but otherwise play to a lower strength then your rating will only be marginally higher.

PHAT
16-06-2004, 09:15 PM
I think the removal of outliers is a practice promoted by experimenters, not staticians. They (the experimenters) like to ignore them as it makes the application of the mathematics simpler. It also depends on the sample size in question. This discussion seems to be mostly centred on a sample size of 1!

The interesting thing about a +1000 point upset is it may not be as unlikely as you think. Probably around 1 every 300 games or so (compare that to a 700 point upset which is around once every 60 games). So while when you see it, you think there is some problem, you probably only see them as often as one might expect.

I believe sociologists have a term for this phenomenon (the belief that exceptions occur more frequently than they actually do) but I can't recall it right now. It seems to afflict a chess players in particular who think their rating is being kept artifically low because they have a good tournament or upset a couple of strong players.

However, the rating system provides a self-fulfilling function. If you play consistently to a particular strength your rating will move to match. If you claim the occasional scalp but otherwise play to a lower strength then your rating will only be marginally higher.

I agree with everything you have said here.

BTW. I am not at all suggesting that my rating is lower than it ought to be. I think I have what I deserve! - scalp taker or not. :lol:

Rincewind
16-06-2004, 09:32 PM
BTW. I am not at all suggesting that my rating is lower than it ought to be. I think I have what I deserve! - scalp taker or not. :lol:

The suggestion it might apply to you is laughable. I've never once heard you even suggest your results deserve a higher rating.

I didn't have anyone in mind in particular and as I write now the ones who do come to mind are not posters on the BB (anymore). ;)

Rhubarb
17-06-2004, 12:25 AM
I didn't have anyone in mind in particular and as I write now the ones who do come to mind are not posters on the BB (anymore). ;)
Name names (up!)

Garvinator
17-06-2004, 12:26 AM
Name names (up!)
where were you for the nsw open?

Rincewind
17-06-2004, 12:34 AM
Name names (up!)

I don't know if I should allow myself to be baited. However, if you use the ol' "The opposite of the next thing you say is true" tactic you might be able to trick me. ;)

Rincewind
17-06-2004, 12:37 AM
where were you for the nsw open?

"I don't play much in weekenders" is an understatement. As it happens I was tucked up at home with a bacterial infection of the sinuses and throat. :sick:

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2004, 02:35 AM
II believe sociologists have a term for this phenomenon (the belief that exceptions occur more frequently than they actually do) but I can't recall it right now.

Perhaps a good chess term for it might be "plaskettitis". :eek:

I don't read Terry Pratchett but I do sense a great degree of cynical wisdom in his widely-reported comment that one in a million chances actually happen about nine times in ten.

Garvinator
17-06-2004, 09:24 AM
"I don't play much in weekenders" is an understatement. As it happens I was tucked up at home with a bacterial infection of the sinuses and throat. :sick:
:lol: i was asking greg canfell about where he was, not you barry, but thanks for your answer anyway :owned: :whistle:

Rhubarb
17-06-2004, 01:09 PM
:lol: i was asking greg canfell about where he was, not you barry, but thanks for your answer anyway :owned: :whistle:
Hi gg, I had other things to do and I'm not overly keen on weekenders either (I have difficulty summoning the psychological effort more than once a day). Plus I'm playing quite a lot of chess as it is at the moment.

How'd you enjoy Sydney gg? (And why the two byes on Sunday?)

P.S. I was sorry to hear of the disturbing behaviour at the tournament. Cathy, if you're reading this, I hope all's well.

Garvinator
17-06-2004, 03:30 PM
(And why the two byes on Sunday?)
i was a little bit ill when i arrived at the club on sunday, then i got worse with a migraine during the third round, i had to contact charles and tell him that i couldnt play rounds 4 and 5.
Also i was hoping to take the two half point byes and then win a rating prize, just to annoy matt :whistle:

How'd you enjoy Sydney gg? it was alright, wouldnt want to live in sydney though ;)

Alan Shore
17-06-2004, 06:56 PM
it was alright, wouldnt want to live in sydney though ;)

Hehe, I second that.. nice place to visit though.

P.S. Great win by the Maroons last night!! :owned:

Rincewind
17-06-2004, 07:22 PM
I don't read Terry Pratchett but I do sense a great degree of cynical wisdom in his widely-reported comment that one in a million chances actually happen about nine times in ten.

I've read some but no where near most of Pratchett's work. After a while I found them becoming repeatitive and formulaic. But I agree with the sentiment. However, I believe the cause is different.

That phenomenon is usually caused by retrospectively calculating probabilities without taking into account the multitudes of possible realities when said coincidence does not occur. One of my favourites is the ol' moon and sun being exactly the right combination of sizes and distance from earth to create the spectacular total eclipses we enjoy on earth. "What's the chance of that?" Who cares??? ;)

Garvinator
18-06-2004, 06:24 PM
I have been attempting to post a couple of games from the 2004 nsw open on here, but i have been unable to work out the notation from the scoresheets i have. I will keep trying to work them out.

Bill Gletsos
18-06-2004, 06:37 PM
A number of people mentioned to me that they would like to see the Xie V Rogers game from the NSW Open.

Ian has kindly provided me with the moves.


[Event "Sydney NSW Open"]
[Date "2004.06.13"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Xie, George"]
[Black "Rogers, Ian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A30"]
[WhiteElo "2281"]
[BlackElo "2582"]


1. Nf3 c5 2. g3 b6 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O Nf6 5. c4 e6 6. Nc3 a6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4
d6 9. Rd1 Nbd7 10. b3 Qc7 11. Ba3 Nc5 12. Rac1 Be7 13. h3 O-O 14. Bb2 Rfd8 15.
g4 Ne8 16. Qe3 Bf8 17. b4 Nd7 18. Ne4 Rac8 19. Neg5 Bxf3 20. Nxf3 Nef6 21. a3
Re8 22. Qb3 Qa7 23. Nd4 Ne5 24. f4 Ng6 25. e3 Nh4 26. Bh1 e5 27. Nc6 Qc7 28. c5
bxc5 29. bxc5 exf4 30. cxd6 Bxd6 31. Ne5 Bc5 32. Rd7 Qxd7 33. Nxd7 Nxd7 34. Bd4
fxe3 35. Bxc5 Nxc5 36. Qd5 Ng6 37. Bf3 Nf4 38. Qf5 Nfd3 39. Rf1 g6 40. Qd5 Nf4
41. Qd4 Ncd3 42. Kh1 e2 43. Bxe2 Rxe2 0-1

Alan Shore
18-06-2004, 08:13 PM
I don't read Terry Pratchett but I do sense a great degree of cynical wisdom in his widely-reported comment that one in a million chances actually happen about nine times in ten.

I decided to use Pratchett's quote at the beginning of my paper on how a chance world view effects purpose, timely post :)

I've only read one of his books, I can appreciate the humour but it was a bit much to take in such large doses..

arosar
13-08-2004, 02:01 PM
Hey Bill....what came out of that situation with the incident in this tourn? Any decision on player(s) involved?

AR